JUDGMENT : SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, in its prefatory note provides the purpose and reasons for its enactment. No doubt, that it is an enactment, which would be falling under Schedule-12, Entry-I of the Constitution of India, being an issue related to the development of the urbanised area but still the powers to regulate, the reasons and object of the Act has had to be exercised by the authorise, which is being created under the Act, for example, the Development Authority which has been defined under Sub-section (g) of Section 2 of the Act itself. Sub-section (g) of Section 2 of the Act reads as under:- “”the Development Authority” or “the Authority”, in relation to any development area, means the Development Authority constituted under Section 4 for that area; ” 2. In a wider sense, the definition of the Development Authority, it would mean an authority which can exercise its power over an area which has been declared as to be a development area under Section 4 of the Act of 1973. 3. The basic ingredients, which are required to authorised an authority as development authority, it would mean that there has had to be a gazette notification issued by the State Government vesting with the body the powers of the Development Authority under the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act reads as under : “(2) The Authority shall be a body corporate, by the name given to it in the said notification, having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both moveable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued.” 4. Perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act of 1973 shows that as soon as the development area as defined under the Act and is notified and demarcated in accordance with sub-section (f) of Section 2, it would always be under the management and control for the development purposes to the body corporate which is notified by the Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. 5. The said body is said to have a perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both moveable and immovable and with the power vested to it, to enter into contract. 5. The said body is said to have a perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both moveable and immovable and with the power vested to it, to enter into contract. As soon as the body created under Section 4 of the Act which has got a separate legal entity and a perpetual succession as notified, it takes divorce from the act of any authority on behalf of any from any action which is being contemplated to be taken by the executives of the State which includes within its ambit District Magistrate also. Meaning thereby, the Development Authority notified under the Act has the exclusive right to exercise its powers for the acts covered under the Act of 1973. 6. In the case, at hand, which has been argued by the petitioner is that for the development of the area belonging to the petitioner No.1 with its trustees as petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, they have got a map sanctioned from the Development Authority, being map No. 287 of 2004-05, which has been issued by the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority, while exercising its powers under Section 15 of the Act, and also as soon as the area is declared as a Development Area under Section 3 of the Act of 1973, and when the petitioner was raising a construction in accordance with the map sanctioned in his favour by the development authority on 29th January, 2015, if at all, there was any deviation in the construction being raised by the petitioner from the map thus sanctioned in his favour, obviously, if any action was required to be taken, it could have been taken either under Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the Development Act by the authority competent under the Act of 1973 only. 7. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that no such action has been ever taken by the Development Authority, so far it relates to the sanction of the map granted to the petitioner and once a special statute falling within the ambit of Schedule 12 of the Constitution of India and State had notified an authority to take action for violation or deviation of construction from the map sanctioned under Section 15 of the Act or for any deviation from it, the power has been vested with the Development Authority as already defined under Sub-section (g) of Section 2 of the Act. 8. Under no set of circumstances, the District Magistrate may be, i.e. he is supreme head of the District and has got a right to exercise control, but he cannot be permitted to barge over the powers and authority vested with the Development Authority under Subsection (g) of Section 2 of the Act as notified by the State Government in view of the provisions contained under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. There the Authority thus notified has been given a status of separate legal entity which means that there is an absolute separation of powers between the Development Authorities created under the Act as compared to the executives of the District Magistrate. 9. In relation thereto, to substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the judgment reported in [2005 (98) RD 418], Smt. Kusum Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein, it has been held that if a map has been sanctioned under the Act of 1973 and if there is any deviation from the sanctioned map, then the exclusive authority to raise any objection or issued direction to stop the construction could be passed only under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act and that power has had to be exercised by the authorities created under the Act itself and not by the District Magistrate. Para 5 of the judgment of Smt. Kusum Singh (Supra) reads as under :- “Learned counsel for the contesting respondent argued that the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (E) and the direction complied with by the Station Officer Incharge concerned was in order to maintain law and order and thus, justified. In my opinion, these orders cannot be justified in any provisions of the law. In my opinion, these orders cannot be justified in any provisions of the law. In fact the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to stop the construction, unless he comes to the conclusion that the constructions are being raised contrary to the statutory provision. No such provision has been brought to may notice by learned counsel for the contesting respondent. Same is the position with regard to the alleged high-handedness of the Station Officer In-charge of concerned police station to get the work stopped pursuance to the direction issued by the respondent No.2. This Court vide its order dated 15th November, 1985 permitted the petitioner to go with the constructions must have been completed. Since the orders impugned in the present writ petition are wholly illegal, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The orders passed by the respondent No.2 on the application of the Incharge Medical Officer and the alleged compliance report to stop the work by the Station Officer In-charge of concerned police station deserves to be quashed.” 10. Consequently, without entering into the merits of the matter, on only this short premise that the District Magistrate has got no authority under the Act of 1973 to pass any order of stoppage of construction and that too on an administrative side, on a complaint, the impugned order dated 25.07.2007, is hereby quashed. The writ petition would stand allowed without creating any impediment in the exercise of powers by the Development Authority who would be at liberty to proceed under the provisions of the Act of 1973, if the construction raised by the petitioner happens to be in violation of the map sanctioned in his favour. 11. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition stands allowed. 12. However, there would be no order as to costs.