s Nos 215 228 251 and 256 of 1966
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights
K R Chaudhuri and K Rajendra Chaudhury for the peti tioner in WP No 215 of 1966
AS R Chari section B Naik K Rajendra Chaudhury and K R Chaudhuri for the petitioners in W Ps
228 and 251 of 1966
B Sen Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain for the petitioner in WP No 256 of 1966
Purshottam Trikamdas G L Sanghi and J B Dadachanji for the respondents Nos 1 3 in WPs
Nos 215 228 and 256 of 1966 and respondents Nos 1 and 2 in WP No 251 of 1966
M section K Sastri and section P Nayar for respondent No 4 in WPs
Nos 215 228 and 256 of 1966 and respondent No 3 in WP No 251 of 1966
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter J
This is a group of four writ petitions filed under article 32 of the Constitution
The common attack in all these petitions is against the validity of certain sections of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act
The petitioners are all owners of plots of land in areas round about Bombay commonly known as Greater Bombay
They have all similar but separate grievances with respect to the development plan prepared and published under the Act
In Writ Petition No 215 of 1966 the petitioner s complaint is as regards his land being earmarked for the public purpose of a park in the Development Plan prepared under the Act
He seeks to prevent the respondents from giving effect to the said designation of lands in the Development Plan and in particular to have the third respondent s order ie the Executive Engineer Planning of the Municipal Corporation of Bombay dated 11th August 1964 to the effect that his lands were needed for the public purpose of a park quashed
In Writ Petition No 228 of 1966 the prayer is that the designation of the petitioners  land as being earmarked for recreation centre and for green belt in the development plan 277 of P  Ward of the City of Greater Bombay should be removed that their lands should be redesignated as earmarked for industrial purpose that the order of the Assistant Engineer Bombay Municipal Corporation rejecting the petitioners  proposal for construction of two factory buildings and lavatory blocks should be quashed and a declaration be made that sections 9 10 11 12 and 13 of the Bombay Town Planning Act are ultra vires the Constitution of India
In Writ Petition No 251 of 1966 the prayers include an order for quashing Resolution No 1173 of December 19 1963 and Resolution No 343 of July 2 1964 of the first respondent and for removal of the designation attached to the petitioners  land as reserved for Government purposes in the Development Plan of P  Ward of Greater Bombay
In Writ Petition No 256 of 1966 the prayers are inter alia for the issue of writs declaring that the Development Plan submitted by the first respondent to the fourth respondent including P Ward on July 3 1964 infringes the petitioners  rights and directing the issue of a commencement certificate for the development and utilisation of the said land in the manner proposed
At the hearing a further prayer was made for urging an additional ground in all the writ petitions challenging the validity of section 17 of the Act
We may consider the broad facts in Writ Petition No 228 of 1966 by way of sample
The petitioners in this case are two persons who claim to be owners of land bearing section No 70 Hissa Nos 4 5 and 6 comprising an aggregate area of 31641 sq
approximately in village Pahadi at Goregaon in Greater Bombay
Their case is that they had applied through their architect on January 2 1962 for permission to change the existing user of their lands by putting them to industrial use and had written a letter to the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay for that purpose by which they proposed to construct on a portion of the land in section No 70 Hissa No 4 a shed for a factory and other necessary sheds
Along with the said letter they gave a notice under section 33 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 of their intention to erect a factory shed on the said land with a request for approval thereof
On January 27 1962 the Executive Engineer Development Plan intimated the petitioners that as a major portion of the proposed factory shed intended to be constructed fell outside the heavy industrial zone in the green belt area as shown in the plan accompanying the letter and as the area was affected by net work of proposed 78 East West and 30  wide North South road under the development plan of the area with only a small portion of the land shown coloured violet filling in the heavy industrial area a commencement certificate could not be granted
By their letter dated March 13 1962 the petitioners complained that the Executive Engineer Development Plan had no authority to earmark any area for green belt and therefore he should reconsider the matter and grant a commencement certificate
On the 278 Same day the petitioners also wrote to the Municipal Commissioner that inasmuch as they had not till then received the notice of disapproval or
any further requisition concerning their application they would place on record that their right to proceed with the construction of the intended shed had become absolute under section 345 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act
On March 22 1962 the Deputy Municipal Commissioner Suburbs acknowledged receipt of the letter
By letter dated April 18 1962 the Executive Engineer Development Plan informed the petitioners that their request for a commencement certificate would not be reconsidered until the development plan was finalised
By their solicitor s letter dated June 13 1962 the petitioners wrote to the 1st respondent ie the Bombay Municipal Corporation that the refusal to grant a commencement certificate was wrongful
This was followed up by a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay being Miscellaneous Petition No 256 of 1962 challenging the said refusal as illegal and invalid
By order dated September 7 1963 the High Court of Bombay allowed the petitioners  application on the ground that the powers and functions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation under section 12 of the Act had not been exercised by an officer prescribed under section 86 of the Act and the decision dated January 27 1962 was liable to be set aside
The development plan for Greater Bombay D Ward was adopted by the first respondent by resolution No 1173 on December 19 1963
By this resolution the second respondent was directed to submit proposals of the development plan in respect of the remaining wards including Ward P in which the petitioners  land was situated
On January 9 1964 the development plan for the remaining wards including Ward P was published by the second respondent in the name of the first respondent
In this the petitioners  land was shown as partly reserved for public roads for industrial purposes the major portion being merely marked by green colour
The petitioners  complaint is that the list of sites reserved for public purposes was for the first time submitted by the second respondent to the Development Committee on February 8 1964 showing for the first time that a major portion of the petitioners  lands were earmarked for a recreation centre
This list was recommended for acceptance by the Committee to the first respondent on June 24 1964 and approved by resolution No 343 on July 2 1964 and forwarded to the State of Maharash tra the fourth respondent herein on July 8 1964
The petitioners complain that although in the plan as originally published the lands of the petitioners were earmarked partly for public roads in an industrial area and merely marked by green colour without any specification and designation by resolution No 343 the first respondent departed from the development plan and included a portion of the lands for recreation centre amongst the sites reserved for public purposes
According to the petitioners this redesignation and modification was made although there were no 279 suggestions before the first second and third respondents in the light of which any modification could have been made under section 9 of the Act
The petitioners by their solicitor s letter dated April 16 1964 requested the respondents to alter the development plan in accordance with the decision of the Bombay High Court and further demanded re designation of their lands as reserved for industrial purpose
This matter was again taken up to the High Court of Bombay by way of petition No 248 of 1964 challenging the refusal of the first and second respondents to modify the development plan
This was rejected in limine by the High Court on July 6 1964
The appeal therefrom being No 42 of 1964 was also rejected on August 12 1964
The petitioners  case is that the High Court rejected petition No 248 of 1964 on the view that they had no cause for complaint unless and until the first respondent refused permission to commence construction
They therefore submitted building plans through their architect on January 9 1965 for construction of a factory shed with a prayer for the issue of a commencement certificate
The third respondent ie the Assistant Engineer Bombay Municipal Corporation by letters dated January 25 1965 and February 13 1965 rejected the petitioners  proposal for construction of factory buildings on their lands on the ground that the lands fell in the reservation for playgrounds and 200 feet wide green belt in the development plan
The petitioners again went up to the Bombay High Court on July 2 1965 by another petition No 312 of 1965 for the issue of a writ of mandamus for setting aside the orders of the third respondent dated January 25 1965 and February 13 1965 and directing the respondent to remove the designation of recreation centre and green belt from the petitioners  land and to designate the entire holding as industrial area in the development plan
The petition was rejected in limine by the Bombay High Court on July 6 1965
An appeal therefrom came for hearing on August 10 1965 when an order was made by consent directing the writ petition to be placed for hearing before a Division Bench
Ultimately however this was dismissed by judgment dated April 25 1966
According to the petitioners they had not challenged the constitutionality of the Act in their petitions
In the present petition to this Court the substantial complaint is that their lands were earmarked in the development plan originally published on January 9 1964 by green colour without assigning any purpose and the reservation and re designation of these lands for recreation centre and green belt by the first second and third respondents in the development plan finally adopted was in contravention of section 9 of the Act
This re designation is challenged as being without authority of law and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners inter alia under articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution
280 In the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the first respondent reference is made to the manner and the course of preparation of the development plan set out in greater detail hereafter
A preliminary objection was taken formulated in some detail that on the failure of the petitions in the Bombay High Court the petitioners could not re agitate the matter in this Court on principles analogous to res judicata
It is not necessary to go into that question or take note of the correspondence which passed between the parties andor their solicitors up to 1964
According to the affidavit the lands belonging to the petitioners were shown in the draft development plan as published on 9th January 1964 as reserved for green belt for public roads with a path being shown as falling in the industrial zone
The deponent the Executive Engineer Planning stated that the suggestions and objections received after the publication of the draft plan were care fully considered by the Development Committee which submitted its report with its recommendations to the first respondent for its approval and such approval was given on July 2 1964
Ultimately the plan was sanctioned by the fourth respondent after consulting the Special Consulting Surveyor subject to certain modifications
The petitioners  solicitor s letter dated April 16 1964 was placed before the Development Commitee for due consideration
The Development Plan Committee considered the suggestions made by the public and gave a report in respect thereof to the first respondent from time to time who finalised the plan at its meeting held on July 2 1964
According to the deponent the letters dated January 25 1965 and February 13 1965 addressed by the third respondent were in proper exercise of the right of rejection of the petitioners  proposal for construction of a factory building
Finally the deponent stated that no part of the petitioners  lands were earmarked for green belt in the development plan as finally approved by the respondent that out of 32000 sq
of the petitioners  lands 12144 sq
yards of land had been earmarked and reserved for playground  804 sq
had been earmarked and reserved for municipal wholesale market 7821 sq
had been earmarked and reserved for public road 1167 sq
fell under residential zone and the balance of 8702 sq
fell in the industrial zone
It will therefore be noticed that the facts as laid in the petitions are not all admitted in the affidavit but nothing was sought to be made out of this and one common argument as to the invalidity of the different sections of the Act was advanced in great detail mainly by Mr Chari who was followed by Mr Sen and Mr Chaudhuri
In substance the united attack was against the validity of the different sections mentioned in detail hereafter
Before examining the contentions on the points of law raised in this case it is necessary to appreciate what the Act sought to achieve and why it was brought on the statute book
In order to do this it is necessary to take stock of the position at the time 281 of its enactment so that attention may be focussed on the situation calling for a remedy and how the legislature sought to tackle it
It is common
knowledge that for a number of years past all over India there has been and is continuing a great influx of people from the villages to towns and cities for the purpose of residence and employment
Besides this the whole of the country is in the grip of a population explosion
Another circumstance to be reckoned with is that industrial development is taking place in and round about many cities which in its turn is attracting people from outside
Most of our towns and cities have grown up without any planning with the result that public amenities therein are now being found to be wholly inadequate for the already enlarged and still expanding population
The roads are too narrow for modern vehicular traffic
The drainage system such as it obtains in most of the towns and cities is hopelessly inadequate to cope with the requirements of an already overgrown population
In most of the towns and cities there is no room for expansion of public amenities like hospitals schools colleges and libraries or parks
Some improvement has been sought to be made by Town Improvement Acts enacted in the different States
In order that the suburbs and the surroundings of towns and cities be developed properly and not allowed to grow haphazard the Legislature of Bombay felt that towns should be allowed to grow only on planned schemes formulated on the basis of a development plan
All local areas which may be equated roughly with municipalities were to have development plans so that an overall picture might be taken of the needs of the expanding town or city and provision made for planned development with regard to roads and streets sanitary arrangements like drainage and water supply places of public utility industrial development etc
The legislature was well aware of the practical difficulties and the magnitude of the task
A development plan for a huge area like Greater Bombay could not be formulated within a space of weeks or months
A survey had to be made of the area under the local authority to take note of the existing conditions and the plan pre pared keeping in mind the facilities available and those which might be had in the forseeable future
Sections of the area have to be set apart in the different localities for industrial and commercial development for private housing for the purpose of the Union or the State for educational and other institutions as also for parks and places of public resort
The authority responsible for the drawing up of the plan had to have regard to the wishes and suggestions of the public and in particular architects engineers industrialists and
public bodies
Of necessity a skeleton plan had to be sketched at first which could be given a final shape after considerable deliberation following the suggestions of the parties interested and the recommendations received
Let us now see how the Legislature of Bombay sought to tackle this huge problem
282 The Act is described as one to consolidate and amend the law by making and executing town planning schemes
The preamble to the Act shows that its object was to ensure that town planning schemes were made in a proper manner and their execution was made effective by local authorities preparing development plans for the entire area within their jurisdiction
A development plan under the Act means a plan for the development or re development or improvement of the entire area within the jurisdiction
of a local authority
A local authority is defined as a municipal corporation or a municipality and includes some appointed committees as also panchayats constituted under the different Acts
Chapter II containing sections 3 to 17 relates to development plans generally
section 31 provides that as soon as may be after the coming into force of the Act every local authority shall carry out a survey of the area within its jurisdiction and prepare and publish in the prescribed manner a development plan and submit the same to the State Government for sanction
The limit of time for this purpose was four years
Sub section
3 authorised the State Government to make an order for extension of the time fixed by sub section
1 for adequate reasons
Sub section
4 authorised the State Government in case a development plan was not prepared and published in terms of sub section
1 to prepare and publish such a plan itself after carrying out the necessary surveys
Under sub section
1 of section 4 even before carrying out a survey of the area referred to in sub sections
1 and 2 of section 3 for the purpose of preparing a development plan for such area the local authority was obliged to make a declaration of its intention to prepare such a plan and to despatch a copy thereof to the State Government for publica tion and publish the same itself in the prescribed manner for inviting suggestions from the public within a period of two months
Under sub section
2 a copy of the plan was to be open to the inspection of the public at all reasonable hours at the head office of the local authority
Ss 5 and 6 provided for the manner of preparing development plans and the authorisation of certain persons to enter upon survey and mark  out that land for the preparation of the plan
section 7 indicated the manner in which the development and improvement of the entire area within the jurisdiction of the local authority was to be carried out and regulated
In particular it had to contain several proposals namely a for designating the use of the land for the purposes such as 1 residential 2 industrial 3 commercial and 4 agricultural  b for designation of land for public purposes such as parks playgrounds recreation grounds open spaces schools markets or medical public health or physical culture institutions c for roads and highways d for the reservation of land for the purpose of the Union State any local authority or any other authority established by law in India and 283 e such other proposals for public or other purposes as may from time to time be approved by a local authority or directed by the State Government in this behalf
Under section 8 various particulars had to be published and sub mitted to the State Government along with the development plan inclusive of a report of the surveys carried out by the local authority a report explaining the provisions of the development plan a report of the stages by which it was proposed to meet the obligations imposed on the local authority by the development plan and an approximate estimate of the cost involved in the acquisition of lands reserved for public purposes
It will be noticed that up to this point the public have practically no say in the matter as to how the development plan should be prepared
section 9 however gives such right to the public and provides If within two months from the date of publication of the development plan any member of the public communicates in writing to the local authority any suggestion relating to such plan the local authority shall consider such suggestion and may at any time before submitting the development plan to the State Government modify such plan as it thinks fit
 At this stage therefore every owner of land is given the right to make suggestions for modification of the plan
He can consult the plan and make his suggestions principally with the idea that his interest may not be adversely affected although there is nothing in the section which prevents him from making suggestions generally with regard to the plan itself
Under section 101 the State Government is given the power to sanction the development plan submitted to it for the whole of the area or sanction it separately in parts either without modification or with such modification as it considers expedient within the time prescribed by the rules
If the development plan is sanctioned separately in parts then each part so sanctioned is deemed to be the final development plan for the purposes of the succeeding provisions of the Act
All such provisions are to apply in relation to such part as they apply in relation to a deve lopment plan relating to the whole of the area
Under sub section 82 the State Government has to fix in its notification sanctioning the plan a date not earlier than one month after the publication of which the final development plan shall come into force
Sub section
3 provides If the development plan contains any proposal for the designation of any land for a purpose specified in clause b or e of section 7 and if such land does not vest in the local authority the State Government shall 284 not include the said purpose in the development plan unless it is satisfied that the local authority concerned shall be able to acquire such land by private agreement or compulsory purchase within a period of ten years from the date on which the final development plan comes into force
 The idea behind this sub section is that if any land is to be set apart for public purposes such as parks etc
mentioned in cl
b of section 7 or any other public purpose which might be approved by a local authority or directed by the State Government in terms of cl
e of section 7 the State Government must examine whether it would be possible for the local authority to be able to acquire such land by private agreement or compulsory purchase within a period of ten years
This acts as a check on the local authority making too ambitious proposals for designating lands for public purposes which they may never have the means to fulfil
It is obvious that the local authority must be given a rea sonable time for the purpose and the legislature thought that a period of ten years was a sufficient one
section 111 empowers the local authority to acquire any land designated in the development plan for a purpose specified in cls
b c d or e of section 7 either by agreement or under the Land Acquisition Act
Under sub section
2 of section II the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 as amended by the Schedule to the Act are to apply to all such acquisitions
The Schedule to the Act shows that section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is to stand amended for the acquisition under this Act with regard to the compensation to be awarded
In fact it is for the benefit of the person whose land is acquired as he can get the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in place of section 4
Sub section
3 provides that if the designated land is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date speci fied under sub section
3 of section 10 or if proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice to the local authority and if within six months from the date of such notice the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition the designation shall be deemed to have lapsed
This provision again is for the benefit of the owner of the land for unless the land is acquired or steps taken in that be
half within the fixed limits of time he ceases to be bound by the designation of his land as given in the development plan
section 12 obliges every person who desires to carry on any deve lopment work in any building or in or over any land within the limits of the said area after the date on which a declaration of intention to prepare a development plan to apply to the local authority for a commencement certificate for the purpose Development in this connection means carrying out of building or 285 other operations in or over or under any land or the making of any material change in the use of any building or other land
It is to be noticed that the section imposes such restriction not only from the date of preparation of the development plan but as soon as there is publication of intention to prepare a development plan
In order to make it obligatory on the local authority to direct its attention to all applications for permission to carry on development work the legislature provided by sub section 1 of section 13 that The local authority on receipt of the application for permission shall at once furnish the applicant with a written acknowledgment of its receipt and after inquiry may either grant or refuse a commencement certificate
Provided that such certificate may be granted subject to such general or special conditions as the State Government may by order made in this behalf direct Under sub section
2 if the local authority does not communicate its decision within three months from the date of such acknowledgment such certificate shall be deemed to have been granted to the applicant
Sub section
3 provides that no compensation is to be payable for the refusal of or the insertion or imposition of conditions in the commencement certificate
This is subject to  the provisions of sections 14 and 15
Sub section
4 lays down that any work done in contravention of section 12 or of sub section
1 of section 13 may be pulled down by the local authority
In this case we are not concerned with the applicability of sections 14 15 and 16
section 17 which was attacked in these cases provides that At least once in every ten years from the date on which the last development plan came into force and where the plan is sanctioned in parts from the date on which the last part came into force the local authority may and if so required by the State Government after the date on which a development plan for any area or as the case may be the part of such plan has come into force shall carry out a fresh survey of the area within its jurisdiction with a view to revising the existing development plan including all parts if sanctioned separately and the provisions of sections 4 to 16 both inclusive shall so far as they can be made applicable apply in respect of such revision of the development plan
 Strong objection was taken to this section on the ground that it gave the local authority concerned almost an unlimited power of protracting the finalisation of the development plan if they were 286 so minded in which case the owners of property would be com pletely at the mercy of the local authority with respect to the development of their own land
Chapter III deals with the making of a town scheme
Under section 18 such a scheme is ordinarily to be made for the purpose of implementing the proposals in the final development plan
It is in the town planning scheme that provisions are to be made for laying out or relaying out of land laying out of new streets or roads the construction alteration and removal of buildings the allotment or reservation of land for roads open spaces recreation grounds etc lighting water supply and the many other things which have to be provided for in the laying out of a town
Chapter IV deals with town planning schemes in general
section 21 shows that such a scheme may be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act in respect of land which is in the course of development or is likely to be used for building purposes or has already been built upon
section 22 empowers local authority to declare its intention to make a town planning scheme in respect of the whole or any part of land referred to in section 2 1
Under section 23 the local authority is obliged to make in consultation with the Consulting Surveyor a draft scheme for the area in respect of which the declaration has been made within twelve months from the said date
The other sections 24 to 29 generally follow the same pattern with regard to town planning schemes as is to be found in sections 7 to 13 relating to development plans
section 29 restricts the right of owners of land to erect or proceed with any building or remove pull down alter make additions to or any substantial repair to any building or change the use of any land or building unless he has obtained the necessary permission from the local authority once there has been a declaration of intention to make a scheme under section 22
section 87 gives the State Government power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act
We may now proceed to take note of how the Bombay Municipal Corporation proceeded to make the development plan against which common complaints have been made
The gist of the contents of the counter affidavits is as follows
After the Act came into force on April 1 1957 the first respondent by resolution No 409 dated July 7 1958 declared its intention to prepare a development plan for the entire area of Greater Bombay within its jurisdiction
In terms of rule 3 framed under the Act a map of the said area accompanied the said declaration and within 15 days of the date of such declaration the first respondent despatched a copy of the same together with a copy of the map to the State Government for publication in the Official Gazette
On September 18 1958 the first respondent published its intention to prepare a development plan by means of advertisements in newspapers circulating in Greater Bombay and affixing copies of the advertisements on the notice boards at its head office and other 287 prominent places in the area
By the said publications the first respondent invited objections and suggestions from the public within a period of two months keeping open for inspection a copy of the plan at its head office
The Municipal Commissioner of Bombay who is a respondent herein set up two Advisory Committees for rendering assistance in the preparation of the development plan
One Committee was composed of representatives of Government departments public authorities industries etc while the other was composed of practising architects and engineers
After taking into consideration the suggestions received and con sultations held tentative development plans for all the wards in Greater Bombay were prepared and discussed by the two Advisory Committees
With a view to give wide publicity to the said plans the same were displayed for public inspection during the year 1960 61
This was further notified in newspapers
As a result of the publication  of the tentative plans a large number of objections and suggestions regarding the tentative development plans were received from the public by the first respondent
The tentative plan for D Ward was put up first as a model plan for consideration by the Development Plan Committee appointed by the first respondent
The said Committee invited suggestions from municipal councillors and different organisations and institutions
Thereafter the said Committee recommended that the second respondent be authorised to publish  the plan for D  Ward and to invite suggestions from the public as per the provisions of section 9 of the Act
The Development Plan Committee made similar recom mendations for the other wards
Thereafter the first respondent resolved and authorised the second respondent to publish the development plans in respect of all other wards in Greater Bombay including P  Ward
We may now make a note of a few details
The draft of a section of the development plan for K P and R Wards was published on or about July 7 1961
The Development Plan Committee took up its work after appointment on December 11 1961
The formalities mentioned above were then gone through
On January 9 1964 the first respondent after considering the proposals made in the tentative development plan and the reports of the Development Plan Committee prepared a development plan and published the same by means of advertisements in approved newspapers and in the Official Gazette
Copies of the advertisements were also displayed at various prominent places
The advertisements published in pursuance of section 9 of the Act announced to the public that communications in writing containing suggestions relating to the plan would be welcome within a period of two months
Many such suggestions were received and considered by the Development Plan Committee who made reports from time to time to the first respondent
After considering such reports of the Development Plan Committee the first respondent at a meeting held on July 2 1964 finalised the development plan 288 after incorporating therein such suggestions as it thought proper or necessary
On July 8 1964 the development plan was submitted by the Municipal Commissioner to the State Government for its sanction under section 10 of the Act
The State Government forwarded all objections to the development plan received by the first respondent to the Special Consulting Surveyor to the Government of Maharashtra specially appointed to advise the Government on the development plan
The Consulting Surveyor scrutinised the objections and advised the Government thereon
In cases where changes had been made by the first respondent after publication of the draft development plan the Consulting Surveyor heard the parties who had objected to such changes and then framed his proposals in respect of such ward in the development plan for sanction by the Government
Government had to consider the development plan ward wise in view of the enormity of the task as the plan covered an area of 169 sq miles divided into fifteen wards affecting a population of nearly 45 lakhs
The plan was so large and detailed that Government found it impracticable to sanction it within the time prescribed by the Bombay Town Planning Rules and consequently had the time extended from time to time by various resolutions
Ultimately after consulting the Special Consulting Surveyor the Government of Maharashtra sanctioned the development plan in respect of P  Ward on September 14 1966
The final plan with regard to Ward D  had been sanctioned on December 10 1963
The common complaint in all these petitions is that sections 9 and 10 of the Act are invalid and unconstitutional in that they empower the local authority and the State Government to modify the development plan without giving opportunity to persons whose interest might be adversely affected by such modification
It was argued that a person say A who had a look at the development plan as first prepared and published might feel quite satisfied with it and not make any suggestions in respect thereof
It being however open to others to make suggestions without any notice to A the local authority was in a position to consider such sug gestions and give effect thereto in the development plan submitted to the State Government
The first mentioned person A in such a case would remain in blissful ignorance of the fact that the plan as finally submitted affected his interest very seriously
It was then argued that if such a modified plan was sent to the State Government it was open to Government to sanction it after consulting the Consulting Surveyor again without any notice to a person like A who might find the sanctioned plan very severely prejudicing his interests in the land held by him
To take an instance it was said a person who found that his land was in the industrial belt in the tentative development plan might feel quite happy with it but as a result of the modifications the plan as finally sanctioned might designate his land as earmarked for public purposes
289 By this he would stand to lose his land without any opportunity being given to him to make any representation in respect thereof
It was next argued that the powers and functions of a local authority for purposes of sections 12 and 13 amongst others were to be exercised and performed by the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay under section 86 of the Act
Under section 12 the final and only authority who had the power to grant or withhold permission to carry on any development work was the Municipal Commissioner
He could under section 13 grant or refuse a commencement certificate at his own sweet will and pleasure there being nothing to guide him in such a matter before the preparation of a development plan
It was argued that even after the preparation of such a plan a commencement certificate could be refused arbitrarily and there was no provision for any appeal from or revision of the order containing the refusal
It was next argued that by the combined operation of sections 4 and 113 the local authority could easily delay the acquisition of any land designated for public purposes under section 7 of the Act for 14 years and if resort was had to power under section 17 of revising the development plan at the end of this period of 14 years
provisions of sections 4 to 16 would again become operative with the result that the acquisition might be delayed for a further period of ten years
Mr Chari went to the length of arguing that section 17 might even be resorted to more than once and so acquisition might be held up indefinitely from generation to generation
In our opinion the argument though at first sight forceful cannot be accepted
As already noted a development plan for an area like Greater Bombay cannot be chalked out or put in blueprint in the space of a few months
We have seen that in order to perform this enormous task an Advisory Committee composed of representatives of various public bodies was formed to advise the Municipality with respect thereto and the public were freely invited to take part therein
Before anything could be done a survey of the area had to be made and a map thereof prepared
Such a map would show the already existing industrial areas public amenities roads and bridges and would give anybody wishing to find out some idea as to the lines on which the deve lopment of the city should proceed
One would then have to take into consideration the existing roads industrial establishments and public amenities already there because the plan as emerging finally could not be made on a clean slate but had to take into account already existing things and the difficulties which would have to be met and overcome when different parts of the area were to be earmarked for special purpose
Plans for various sections of Greater Bombay were prepared with the assistance of the Advisory Committee
The tentative development plans in this case were displayed for public inspection during the year 290 1960 61
Within a space of two years therefore the local authority had some guidance in the matter of granting or refusing a commencement certificate for development work of any land proposed to be taken up by any of the petitioners
A reference to the tentative plans would show whether the area within which the
development work was proposed to be carried on was set apart for industrial commercial residential or agricultural purposes or whether it was to be set apart for public purposes
It might be that as a result of the modification of the tentative plan the area which at first fell under the designation residential came to be included in the area designated as industrial or even came to be embraced for designation for a public purpose
In all such cases where large powers are given to certain authorities the exercise whereof may make serious in roads into the rights of property of private individuals we have to see whether there is any guidance to be collected from the Act itself its object and its provisions in the light of the surrounding circumstances which made the legislation necessary taken in conjunction with well known facts of which the court might take judicial notice
We may in this connection refer to a judgment of this Court in Jyoti Pershad vs Administration for The Union Territory of Delhi1
The facts in that case were as follows
The petitioner who was the owner of a house containing several rooms let out to different individuals desired to demolish the same and reconstruct it
He submitted a plan to the Council of the Delhi Municipal Committee and applied for sanction for the reconstruction of the house
After the sanction of the plan he filed suits for eviction of nine tenants under section 131g of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 38 of 1952
In order to succeed in the suits he had to show that he had a plan sanctioned by the municipal authorities which made provision for the tenants then in occupation of the house being accommodated in the house as reconstructed and that he had the necessary funds to carry out the reconstruction
The petitioner had no difficulty in establishing these and he succeeded in getting decrees for eviction
The tenants however refused to give up possession and went up in appeal
Ultimately however the petitioner succeeded in the appeals filed by the tenants
Meanwhile the Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act 96 of 1956 was enacted by Parliament and came into force in the Delhi area
section 191 of that Act provided that Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no person who has obtained any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building in a slum area shall be entitled to execute such decree or order except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority  291 Under sub section
2 every person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in sub section
1 shall make an application in writing to the competent authority giving particulars as may be prescribed
Under sub section
3 the competent authority was bound to make a summary enquiry after giving an opportunity to the tenant of being heard and then by order in writing either grant or refuse to grant it
Under sub section
4 the competent authority must record a statement showing brief reasons for such refusal
The peti tioner s application under section 19 was turned down by thecompetent authority on the ground that the house was not in such a condition that it called for demolition and if sanction was given the tenants would be thrown out and it would be impossible for them to get accommodation in the reconstructed building as they were very poor and not likely to be able to pay the enhanced rent in respect of rooms in Delhi
The appeal by the petitioner to the Union Territory was dismissed mainly on the ground that if the appeal was allowed a large number of poor tenants from slum areas would be evicted and as the property itself was not in a dilapidated condition and declared unfit for human habitation permission to evict the tenants could not be given
The petitioner then moved this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash these orders
His complaint was that section 19 of the Act was invalid and unconstitutional and violated the petitioner s rights guaranteed by articles 14 and 191f of the Constitution
There it was argued that section 193 of the Act vested an unguided unfettered and uncontrolled power in an executive officer to withhold permission to execute a decree which a landlord had obtained after satisfying the reasonable requirements of law as enacted in the Rent Control Act
It was further urged that neither section 19 of the Act nor any other provision of it indicated the grounds on which the competent authority might grant or withhold permission to execute decrees and the power conferred was therefore arbitrary and offended article 14 of the Constitution
It was further urged that there was an excessive delegation of legislative power as the executive authority could at its sweet will and pleasure disregard rights to property without any guidance from the legislature
A point was further raised that such refusal might go on for an indefinite and indeterminate period of time affecting the petitioner s right to enjoy his property and imposing an excessive and unreasonable restraint on his right
The import and scope of article 14 of the Constitution was examined in this case at some length
The Court examined the provisions of the Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act and noted that the process of slum clearance and re development would have to be carried out in an orderly fashion if the purpose of the Act was to be fulfilled and the policy behind it viz the establishment of slum dwellers in healthier and more comfortable tenements so as to improve the health and morals of the community was to be achieved
Chapter VI of the Act which was headed Protection of tenants in Slum 292 Areas from Eviction read in the light of the other provisions of the Act made it clear that it was necessary to allow the slum dwellers to remain in their dwellings until provision was made for a better life for them elsewhere
It was said Though therefore the Act fixes no time limit during which alone the restraint on eviction is to operate it is clear from the policy and purpose of the enactment and the object which it seeks to achieve that this restriction would only be for a period which would be determined by the speed with which the authorities are able to make other provisions for affording the slum dwellertenants better living conditions
The Act no doubt looks at the problem not from the point of view of the landlord his needs the money he has sunk in the house and the possible profit that he might make if the house were either let to other tenants or was reconstructed and let out but rather from the point of view of the tenants who have no alternative accommodation and who would be stranded in the open if an order for eviction were passed
 Taking into consideration the entire provisions of the Act the Court observed In view of the foregoing we consider that there is enough guidance to the competent authority in the use of his discretion under section 191 of the Act and we therefore reject the contention that section 19 is obnoxious to the equal protection of laws guaranteed by article 14 of the Constitution
We need only add that it was not and could not be disputed that the guidance which we have held could be derived from the enactment and that it bears a reasonable and rational relationship to the object to be attained by the Act and in fact would fulfil the purpose which the law seeks to achieve viz the orderly elimination of slums with interim protection for the slum dwellers until they were moved into better dwellings
 The further objection that Parliament when enacting the Act could easily have indicated with reference to the several grounds on which eviction could be had under the Rent Control Act the additional restrictions or further conditions which would be taken into account by the competent authority was met by saying In the context of modern conditions and the variety and complexity of the situations which present themselves for solution it is not possible for the Legislature to envisage in detail every possibility and make provision for them
The Legislature therefore is forced to leave 293 the authorities created by it an ample discretion limited however by the guidance afforded by the Act 
So long therefore as the Legislature indicates in the operative provisions of the statute with certainty the policy and purpose of the enactment the mere fact that the legislation is skeletal or the fact that a discretion is left to those entrusted with administering the law affords no basis either for the contention that there has been excessive delegation of legislative power as to amount to an abdication of its functions or that the discretion vested is uncanalised and unguided as to the amount to a carte blanche to discriminate
The second is that if the power or discretion has been conferred in a manner which is legal and constitutional the fact that Parliament could possibly have made more detailed provisions could obviously not be a ground for invalidating the law The other objection in that case that the power vested in the competent authority at its sweet will and pleasure to refuse permission to execute a decree for eviction violated the right to hold property under article 191f of the Constitution on the ground hat there were no principles in the Act itself to guide the competent authority in the exercise of his will and pleasure was met by saying that the restrictions imposed would not be held to be unreasonable as the ban imposed on eviction is temporary though  its duration is not definite
In the very nature of things the period when slums would have ceased to exist or restrictions placed upon owners of property could be completely lifted must obviously be indefinite and therefore the indefiniteness cannot be a ground for invalidity a ground upon which the restriction could be held to be unreasonable
 It was further said that in considering the reasonableness of the restriction one has to take into account the fact a fact of which judicial notice has to be taken that there has been an unprecedented influx of population into the capital and in such a short interval that there has not been time for natural processes of expansion of the city to adjust itself to the increased needs
Remedies which in normal times might be considered an unreasonable restriction on the right to hold property would not bear that aspect or be so considered when viewed in a situation of emergency brought about by exceptional and unprecedented circumstances
Just as pulling down a build 294 ing to prevent the spread of flames would be reasonable in the event of a fire the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the impugned legislation has to be judged in the light of actual facts and not on a priori reasoning based on the dicta in decisions rendered in situations bearing not even the remotest resemblance to that which presented itself to Parliament when the legislation now impugned was enacted
 In our opinion the observations made in the above case apply with equal force to the facts of this case
The affidavits used show what an enormous increase of population has taken place in Bombay in recent years
One cannot lose sight of the fact that the growth of the city and the industrialisation of its surroundings are going on apace and if factories are allowed to be set up just where the owners of certain plots of land want to erect them it could render large areas unfit for residential purposes
In the area covered by Greater Bombay the municipal authorities have to proceed with caution when sanctioning any development work
It is well known that a master plan for Greater Bombay was prepared even before the Act came into force but by the time the Act was enacted the same was found to be out of date
The preparation of a development plan for Greater Bombay was an immense task and the authorities proceeded with it in a manner to which no exception can be taken
They formed an Advisory Committee prepared a tentative development plan and ultimately the development plans for different wards
At all stages suggestions and objections were received and wide publicity was given to the steps which were being taken from time to time
Although section 12 does not in terms state the grounds on which the permission of the local authority to sanction development work may be withheld it is clear that the authority had to proceed on the basis of the tentative plan
The legislature was aware that a good deal of time might elapse before the Development Plan was finally sanctioned and that is why provision was made for extension of the period of four years if need be from time to time
After a declaration under section 4 is made the map is published under r 3 and the suggestions are received the municipal authorities must consider in the light of material before them as to whether the intended building operations ought to be sanctioned or not
Once the development plan was before it of course there was no difficulty
In our opinion there was enough guidance in the Town Planning Act to enable the Municipal Commissioner to come to a conclusion as to whether a particular commencement certificate should be granted or not and the power exercisable under the sections was neither uncanalised nor arbitrary
In all these four petitions reasons were given as to why the commencement certificate was withheld
It may be that the reason at first given was not adhered to later on but that was because by then the plan had undergone a modification
295 With regard to the complaint that the period of ten years fixed under section II 3 of the Act was too long and an unreasonable restriction on the rights of a land owner to deal with his land as he pleased it is enough to say that in view of the immensity of the task of the local authorities to find funds for the acquisition of lands for public purposes a period of ten years was not too long
In this case the authority had to deal with an area measuring about 169 sq
miles or roughly an area measuring 17 miles X 10 miles which is larger than most of our big cities without their suburbs
The preparation of a development plan for such an area must take a considerable period of time
We may also point out that this is not the first occasion when the validity of this Act has been called in question before this Court
In Manecklal Chhotalal  Ors
vs M G Makwana and Ors1 objections were taken with regard to the Town Planning Scheme No 19 Memnagar Ahmedabad prepared under the Act as amended by the Gujarat Amendment and Validating Act LII of 1963
There the declaration of intention to prepare a town planning scheme was made under section 221 of the Act in respect of certain areas of land which included some lands of the petitioners
On June 13 1960 a draft Town Planning Scheme was prepared under section 231 and it was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated June 23 1960
The petitioners submitted objections and suggestions before the Town Planning Committee
After consideration of the same the second respondent forwarded the Town Planning Scheme to the third respondent the State of Gujarat under section 281 of the Act
The third respondent sanctioned the draft scheme and appointed a Town Planning Officer
This officer issued a public notice in October 1961 inviting objections and suggestions from owners of land
The petitioners again filed objections in November 1961 before the Town Planning Officer and here also they reiterated the same objections and suggestions which they had placed before the Town Planning Committee at the earlier stage and before the second respondent later
In the first notice issued by the Town Planning Officer it was mentioned that the petitioners were being allotted new plots measuring 19087 sq
yards as against two plots measuring 56164 sq
It was stated that the value of the original plots was Rs 37556 and of the new plots Rs 14315 and that in consequence the petitioners were entitled to compensation of Rs 23241
The notice further stated that the value of plots which were being allotted as new plots after taking into account the improvements in the scheme was Rs 135590 and after deducting the price of those plots without reference to the improvements viz Rs 14315 the increase under section 65 of the Act was Rs 121275
The petitioners were therefore liable to pay contribution at the rate of 50  on the increment under section 66 ie Rs 60638 1  296 and after giving credit to them for the sum of Rs 23241 they were called upon to pay Rs 37397
There was some alteration in this and ultimately the petitioners were informed that in lieu of plot 22 measuring 37873 sq
yards they were allotted plots measuring 20123 sq
yards and the value under section 67 was fixed at Rs 8222
The final position under these two notices was that the petitioners were getting land of an extent of 35558 sq
yards as against the original extent of 70180 sq
yards and they had to pay a sum of Rs 73867 as contribution
The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioners was that the State Legislature was not competent to pass the Act as it was not covered by any of the entries in List 11 or List 111 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and even assuming that the State Legislature could pass the Act nevertheless its provisions regarding the levy of contribution towards the cost of the Scheme and all other matters relating to the working of the scheme were unauthorised and unreasonable and that the powers vested in the Town Planning Officer and other authorities under the Act were unguided arbitrary and uncontrolled and as such infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners under articles 14 191f  g and 31 of the Constitution
It will be noticed that there is a good deal of similarity between that application and the present series of applications although the objections raised are not quite the same
In that case the Court examined the Act and the scheme including sections 3 to 17 in Chapter 11 dealing with development plans
As noted already Chapter III deals with the making of Town Planning Scheme and the contents of a Town Planning Scheme and Chapter IV deals with declaration of intention to make a scheme and making of a draft scheme
Chapters IV V VI VII and IX were considered in some detail as also r 3 relating to the publication of the de claration under section 4 and r 4 dealing with the publication of the development plan
The Court noted after referring to the sections and the rules that a perusal thereof clearly showed that elaborate provisions had been made for giving as wide a publicity as possible at all stages to the public and to owners of land who may be affected by the scheme
They provided for objections which were being heard by the authorities concerned
The objection that unfettered and arbitrary power was vested in the Town Planning Officer in the matter of deciding various points covered by section 32 of the Act was turned down
Ultimately the Court said   having due regard to the substantive and procedural aspects we are satisfied that the Act imposes only reasonable restrictions in which case it is saved under article 195 of the Constitution
The considerations referred to above will also show that the grievance of the petitioners that article 14 is violated is also not acceptable
 297 In our opinion apart from the aspect of the question that the Act has been found after consideration of its different sections to be a valid enactment we are not impressed by any of the arguments raised before us
The argument that a person was given no opportunity of meeting the objections raised by others with regard to the development plan has no force in the light of the facts disclosed in the affidavits
After all it is for the authority concerned to prepare the plan after hearing all the parties concerned
If the authorities were to hear all the parties with regard to all the suggestions made giving them separate and independent hearings no development plan could ever be prepared
The authority was not concerned with considering the advantages or disadvantages which might accrue to a particular person or a group of persons owning lands in different parts of the area concerned but it had to go by the larger interest of the population at large and the generations to come
The affidavits show that nothing was done haphazardly
Suggestions and objections at all stages were carefully considered
The assistance of committees of experts was taken and the plan emerged only after an immense amount of labour had been bestowed on its preparation
The second argument that section 13 of the Act gave an uncon trolled and uncanalised power to the local authority to refuse a commencement certificate arbitrarily cannot also be accepted
As already noted the development of an area like Greater Bombay has to be guided and channeled in a particular manner following well defined plans
Public amenities have to be provided for  lands set apart for public purposes to be acquired by local authority to be considered industrialisation of the areas to be guided in the view of the industries already existing their probable demands in future spacing out and such like objects
The help of various associations was taken and suggestions of the public received and discussed by an Advisory Committee
Before the finalisation of the development plan there was already a tentative plan by which the local authority had to guide itself
After a development plan was prepared the question was a simple one as to whether the commencement certificate could be given without doing any violation to the development plan
The fact that no appeal from the decision under section 13 was provided for is a matter of no moment for the authority under section 13 is no less than the Municipal Commissioner himself or the Chief Officer of the Municipal Borough or a person exercising the power of an Executive Officer of any local authority
When the power had to be exercised by one of the highest officers of the local authority intimately connected with the preparation of the development plan in all its stages it is difficult to envisage what other authority could be entrusted with the work of appeal or revision
The preparation of the tentative plan or the final development plan was not something which was left to the pleasure or discretion of the local authority
Immense pains were taken by a vast number of 298 people and it was their combined effort and skill which went to the making of the development plan preceded by the tentative plan
section 13 prescribes that the local authority should make an inquiry before granting or refusing a commencement certificate
The Authority must therefore look into all material available to it including the tentative plans and the final development plan and then make up its mind as to whether a commencement certificate should be granted or not
If the provisions of the Act are borne in mind and the rules framed thereunder complied with as appears to have been done in these cases there was little or no scope for the local authority acting arbitrarily under section 13 of the Act
We have already noted that the authority concerned com municated to the petitioners in Writ Petition No 228 of 1966 as to why their prayer for the issue of a commencement certificate could not be granted
The facts in the other writ petitioners are on a close parallel
We also find ourselves unable to accept the third contention that by the combined operation of sections 4 and 113 of the Act the local authority could protract the acquisition of any land designated for a public purpose under section 7 of the Act at least for 14 years and thereafter indefinitely
A similar argument was put up before this Court in the case of Jyoti Pershad vs Administrator for The Union Territory of Delhi1
The argument there put up about excessive delegation of legislative power to an executive authority to disregard rights to property of a person who had obtained a decree for eviction indefinitely was turned down by this Court
There it was said that the restriction of the power of eviction would have to be determined by the speed with which the authorities were able to make provisions for affording the slum dwellers better living conditions
No one can be heard to say that the local authority after making up its mind to acquire land for a public purpose must do so within as short a period of time as possible
It would not be reasonable to place such a restriction on the power of the local authority which is out to create better living conditions for millions of people in a vast area
The finances of a local authority are not unlimited nor have they the power to execute all schemes of proper utilisation of land set apart for public purposes as expeditiously as one would like
They can only do this by proceeding with their scheme gradually by improving portions of the area at a time obtaining money from persons whose lands had been improved and augmenting the same with their own resources so as to be able to take up the improvement work with regard to another area marked out for development
The period of ten years fixed at first cannot therefore be taken to be the ultimate length of time within which they had to complete their work
The legislature fixed upon this period as being a reasonable one in the circumstances obtaining at the time when the statute was enacted
1  299 We cannot further overlook the fact that modifications to the final development plan were not beyond the range of possibility
We cannot therefore hold that the limit of time fixed under section 4 read with section 113 forms an unreasonable restriction on the rights of a person to hold his property
Towards the end of the hearing counsel for the petitioners submitted that section 17 of the Act might be left out of consideration for the purpose of these petitions and learned counsel for the respondents were agreeable to this course
We therefore do not express our views about the validity or otherwise of this section
In our opinion the objections raised as to the invalidity of sections 9 10 11 12 and
13 cannot be upheld
As the petitioners have failed in their attempt to establish any violation of their fundamental rights under the Constitution the petitions will all be dismissed
The petitioners will pay one set of costs
RKPS Petitions dismissed


Summary:
The petitioners were owners of certain land in Greater Bom bay in respect of which a declaration of intention under s41 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 to prepare a development plan had been made by the respondent Bombay Municipal Corporation
They applied to the Municipal Commissioner in January 1962 for permission to change the existing user of their land and for a commencement certificate under section 12 to construct factory sheds on a part of the land but their application was rejected by the Executive Engineer Development Plan
A tentative develop ment plan for the area which included the petitioner s land was published on January 9 1964 in which their land was shown as partly reserved for public roads partly for industrial purposes and the rest was marked green
After a large number of objections and suggestions on the tentative plan had been received and considered in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Act the Municipal Corporation finally approved the plan on July 2 1964 and forwarded it to the State Government for its sanction under section 10
The State Government sanctioned the final development plan for the ward in which the petitioners  lands were located on September 14 1966 after consulting its special Consulting Surveyor who scrutinised all the objections received by the Municipal Corporation and heard the objectors
The final plan showed that a major portion of the petitioner s land was earmarked for a recreation centre
Although a writ petition filed by the petitioners before the publication of the tentative development plan against the rejection of their application for a commencement certificate was allowed by the High Court on the ground that powers of the Municipal Corporation under section 12 had not been exercised by an officer prescribed under section 86 two subsequent petitions filed by them after the approval of the final plan by the Municipal Corporation to obtain redesi gnation of their land were dismissed
In the present petition under article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners claimed that after the reservation of their land as shown in the tentative plan published on January 9 1964 its redesignation in the final plan for a recreation centre was without authority of law and violative of their rights under articles 14 and 19
It was contended inter alia i that sections 9 and 10 of the Act were invalid and unconstitutional in that they empowered the local authority and the State Government to modify as a result of objections received from other persons a development plan against which a particular person may not have objected without giving an opportunity to that person to represent against a subsequent modification by which his interest may be adversely affected ii that under section 12 the final 275 and only authority who had the power to grant or withhold permission to carry on any development work after a declaration of intention under section 41 was the Municipal Commissioner he could under section 13 grant or refuse a commencement certificate at will there being nothing to guide him in such a matter before the preparation of a development plan even after the preparation of such a plan a commencement certificate could be refused arbitrarily and there was no provision for any appeal from or revision of the order containing the refusal and iii that by the combined operation of sections 4 and 11 3 the local authority could easily delay the acquisition of any land designated for a public purpose under section 7 of the Act for 14 years and this constituted an unreasonable restriction on the right to hold property
Held The objections raised as to the invalidity of sections 9 10 11 12 and 13 could not be upheld
i The contention that a person was given no opportunity of meeting the objections raised by others with regard to the development plan has no force in the light of the facts disclosed as to the enormity of the task of finalising the development plan
If the authorities were to hear all the parties with regard to all the suggestions made give them separate and independent hearings no development plan could ever be prepared
The authority was not concerned with considering the advantages or disadvantages which might accrue to a particular person or a group of persons owning lands in different parts of the area concerned but it had to go by the larger interest of the population at large and the generations to come
The affidavits show that nothing was done haphazardly
Suggestions and objections at all stages were carefully considered the assistance of committees of experts was taken and the plan emerged only after an immense amount of labour had been bestowed in its preparation
297B D ii There was enough guidance in the Town Planning Act to enable the Municipal Commissioner to come to a conclusion as to whether a particular commencement certificate should be granted or not and the power exercisable under sections 12 and 13 was neither uncanalised nor arbitrary
section 13 prescribes that the local authority should make an inquiry before granting or refusing a commencement certificate
The Authority must therefore look into all material available to it including the tentative plans and the final development plan and then make up its mind as to whether a commencement certificate should be granted or not
If the provisions of the Act are borne in mind and the rules framed thereunder complied with there was little or no scope for the local authority acting arbitrarily under section 13 of the Act
298A C The fact that no appeal from the decision under section 13 was provided for is a matter of no moment for the authority under section 13 is no less than the Municipal Commissioner himself or the Chief Officer of the Municipal Borough or a person exercising the power of an Executive Officer of any local authority
when the  power had to be exercised by one of the highest officers of the local authority intimately connected with the preparation of the development plan in all its stages it is difficult to envisage what other authority could be entrusted with the work of appeal or revision
297F H iii In view of the immensity of the task of the local authorities to find funds for the acquisition of lands for public purposes a period  of ten years fixed by section 11 3 was not too long
In the present case the authority had to deal with an area measuring about 169 sq
miles which was larger than most of the big cities in India
276 The preparation of a development plan for such an area must take a considerable period of time
Furthermore it is not beyond the range of possibility that the final development plan may require modifications
It could not therefore be held that the limit of time fixed under section 14 read with section 113 formed an unreasonable restriction on the right to hold property
298G 229A Joyti Pershad vs Administration for The Union Territory of Delhi  Manecklal Chhotalal  Ors
vs M G Makwana and Ors WP 641966 cases relied upon