Meherbai Karl Khandalawala v. Competent Authority Under Urban Land Ceiling And Regulation Act, 1976

Variava, J.:— By this Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the scheme sactioned under section 21(1) of the urban land (ceiling & regulation) act, 1976 and the action of Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 in granting permission to construct on Plots Nos. 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 28, 50, 51, 84, 85 and 114 in Koregaon Park Area, Pune, on the grounds set out hereafter.

2. The facts briefly stated are that the Petitioners are all residents and owners of house properties situated in Koregaon Park, Pune. The Petitioners are also active members of an Association known as Koregaon Park Residents' Association. It would seem that in or about 1920, Koregaon Park Area was formed as a model colony with an area of approximately 208.7 hectares divided into 122 plots. The plots were given out to various parties on leases in perpetuity. All the leases are identical. Clauses 6 and 8 of the Lease Deeds provide as follows:

“6. The lessee shall after the said land has been included within the limits of the suburban Municipality of Poona comply with the Municipal rules and bye-laws for the time being in force in this behalf.

8. The lessee shall not at any time erect or alter any building erected upon the said land otherwise than in accordance with a plan thereof submitted to and approved by the Collector of Poona.”

3. The Collector of Pune had also framed certain Rules entitled “BUILDING RULES FRAMED BY THE COLLECTOR OF PUNE FOR KOREGAON PARK”. The relevant rules are as follows:

“3. Only one main building together with such outhouses as are reasonably required for the bona fide use and enjoyment by its occupants and their domestic servants shall be permitted to be erected in any building plot. Provided that this restriction shall not prevent the erection of two or more buildings on the same plot, if the plot admeasures at least twice or thrice as the case may be (according to the number of buildings) the minimum size required. Provided also that the same open space shall be required around each main buildings as if each of these were in a separate building plot.

5. Every building shall be set back at least 20 ft. from the boundary of any road, 40 ft. or more in width and 15 ft. from the other roads as shown in the lay-out. Provided that in the case of Highways, Provincial or District Roads the set-back of buildings from the boundary of the road shall be as prescribed in C.R.R.D No. 10204/24 VIII dated 27th June, 1945 viz., 50 ft. in the case of Highways, Provincial and Major District Roads, 30 ft. in the case of District Roads other than Major District Roads and 20 ft. in the case of village roads.

9. Not more than one-third of the total area of any building plot shall be built upon….

10. No building shall contain more than two storeys including the ground floor.

11. If flats are constructed there shall be not more than two self-contained flats on each floor, each flat being occupied by one family only.

31. No addition to or alterations in a building shall be carried out without the previous written permission of the Collector.

32. In the case of land or buildings situate within the limits of the Municipality or any other local authority, the rules and bye-laws of the Municipality or Local Authority in that behalf shall apply in addition to regulations prescribed above.

33. The permission shall be liable to be revoked on breach of any of the conditions.

36. No buildings shall be used for other than the residential purposes.”

4. By a Notification published on 15th February 1950, Koregaon Park area was incorporated into the limits of Pune Municipal corporation. On 15th August 1966 a final development plan for Pune came into effect. In 1981 a draft development plan for Pune was prepared and published under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “MRTP Act”). Against this draft development plan, objections were filed by various parties including environmental groups. One of the objections taken was that the development rules were not in consonance with the building rules applicable to Koregaon Park. On 5th January 1987 the final development control plan and rules for Pune were sanctioned by the State Government with effect from 5th February 1987. In this final plan, the building rules framed by the Collector of Pune for Koregaon Park have been bodily incorporated as Appendix ‘S’.

5. In the meantime on 18th May 1983 Commencement Certificate had been granted to Respondent No. 10 to construct buildings on Plots Nos. 7, 8 and 9. On 21st June 1984, the 1st Respondent sanctioned a Scheme under Section 21(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in favour of Respondent No. 7 and pursuant thereto on 10th January 1985 a Commencement Certificate has been sanctioned by the 2nd Respondent, permitting Respondent No. 7 to construct multistoried buildings on Plot No. 28. The 2nd respondents has also on 4th January 1985 granted a Commencement Certificate to Respondents Nos. 8 and 9 to construct on Plots Nos. 50 and 51. The 2nd Respondent has, it would seem, also granted Commencement Certificates to owners of Plots Nos. 15, 16, 22, 84, 85 and 114. The 2nd respondent whilst granting Commencement Certificate has in all the above mentioned cases sanctioned an FSI of 1.

6. The Petitioners thereafter filed this Petition on the 25th March 1985. As a result of the Interim Orders obtained by the Petitioners and served on all the owners of Plots, i.e, Plots Nos. 15, 16, 28, 50, 51, 84, 85 and 114 the owners could not carry out any work and in fact no work had been sarted. However, before any Interim Orders could be obtained, Respondent No. 10 had already constructed the basement, ground and two upper floors. Similarly, owner of Plot No. 22 had already constructed one building. Thereafter Respondents Nos. 7 to 10 applied to be and were made parties to the Petition. The owners of other plots have not applied and have not appeared before this Court, in spite of the Interim Orders of this Court.

7. Counsel for Respondent No. 10 stated that Respondent No. 10 shall restrict the construction of the staff quarters to ground and three upper floors and that subject to obtaining permission from the Pune Municipal Corporation, the entrance of the hospital on Plots Nos. 7, 8 and 9 will be from Koregaon Park Road and the exit from the first lane of Koregaon Park. In view of this statement, the Petitioners applied for discharge of Rule as against Respondent No. 10. In our view, keeping in mind the fact that Respondent No. 10 was constructing a hospital and keeping in mind the charitable nature of respondent No. 10 mission and also keeping in mind that by that time Rule was sought and an injunction obtained, Respondent No. 10 has in fact substantially constructed and had also placed orders for hospital equipments and made various other commitments, we feel it is in the interest of public and absolutely just and equitable that the statement of Respondent No. 10 be accepted and Rule as against Respondent No. 10 be discharged.

8. The arguments of Mr. Desai on behalf of Respondent No. 7 have been adopted by Mr. Sawant on behalf of Respondent No. 8 and Miss Iyer on behalf of Respondent No. 9. Mr. Desai has argued that the Petitioners have no locus standi and are not entitled to maintain this Petition. He submits that the Petitioners are neither flat purchasers nor do they have any contracts or agreements with the Respondents. Mr. Desai has argued that at the highest all that could be said was that the Respondents were in breach of the conditions of their lease. He submits that this is a matter of contract and that a violation can only give a right of forfeiture under clauses 9 and 10. He therefore submits that a third party cannot enforce the implementation of the contract and that in any event the terms of the contract cannot be enforced in a Writ and that for that reason the Petition must be dismissed. It is to be seen that the Petitioner are all residents of Koregaon Park area and that this Petition has been filed as a public interest litigation. Further the Petitioners have averred in the Petition that in Pune there is an acute shortage of water supply and that even the sewerage treatment capacity is totally inadequate, resulting in a very high proportion of sewerage water being dumped into the river. The petitioners have pointed out that the Standing Committee of Respondent No. 2 have accorded sanction for drafting a Rs. 49.85 crore plan for laying down underground drainage lines, out of all sewers, pumping stations and water treatment plans. The Petitioners have averred that the City of Pune and Koregaon Park area are not geared for construction activities and/or development activities until the entire infrastructure required for hygienic living is provided. The Petitioners aver that they are therefore, likely to be affected by the proposed constructions. The fact that the basic amenities are already in short supply is not denied or disputed by anybody. In fact in the commencement certificate granted conditions 10 and 16 provide as under:

“10. The Society will have to make its own water supply arrangements and no complaints in this respect will be entertained.

16. Corporation is not in a position to provide amentities especially that of water to this area. In view of these circumstances the promoter/Chairman must apprise the plot holders/members of this fact”.

9. Further by this Petition the Petitioners are not seeking to enforce any terms of the lease between the Respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 on the one hand and Respondent No. 5 on the other, but are impugning the acts of statutory authorities in granting permission for development contrary to the law in force. The Petitioners therefore cannot be said to be mere wayfarers or busy body who have no interest in the cause of action. Under these circumstances we hold that the Petitioners have a locus and can maintain this Petition.

10. The Petitioners challenge the commencement certificate granted by the Pune Municipal Corporation and the proposed development on the ground that the same are violative of and contrary to the Collector's Rules which were at the relevant time in force in Koregaon Park. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the permission as granted by the Pune Municipal Corporation is for an FSI of 1 and that even the other condition regarding open spaces and there being only one floor have not been complied with. The fact that the development plans as sanctioned do not comply with the Collector's Rules is not denied.

11. Mr. Desai on behalf of Respondent No. 7 has submitted:

i) that the Collector's Rules do not have any statutory force and cannot impose any conditions as they are not in the nature of law;

ii) that the Collector's Rules were superseded; and

iii) that in any event the commencement certificate has been granted keeping in mind the draft plan for Pune published on 18th September 1982.

12. On this first submission Mr. Desai has argued that it has not been shown by the Petitioners as to when and how these Collectors Rules received any statutory force. It is submitted that the Rules disclosed by the Petitioners must have been framed some time after 1945 inasmuch as in Rule 5 of the Collector's Rules there is a reference to an order of June 1945. It is submitted that this internal evidence itself shows that these Rules were not in force at an earlier day and that they have no statutory force. Mr. Desai had, in this behalf, drawn our attention to the boundaries of Koregaon Park as given in the Collector's Rules and had submitted that this included the area where a line of multistoried buildings, including Blue Diamond Hotel, are situated. He submitted that therefore it was clear that these rules were not applicable at all as otherwise those buildings could not have been contracted.

13. In this behalf it is pertinent to note that in the affidavit in reply dated 3rd November 1987 filed on behalf of the 6th Respondent it is admitted that building regulations in Koregaon Park area were the Collector's Rules. The learned Advocate General stated that these Rules were framed under Section 37 of the then Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. Respondent No. 2 in its affidavit in reply dated 17th December 1985 also avers that with effect from 15th February 1950, the Collector's Rules were not applicable. Thus Respondent No. 2 does not dispute that till 15th February 1950 the Collector's Rules were in force. Further Respondent No. 7 in his affidavit in reply dated 2nd May 1985 sub-paragraph (j) of paragraph 16 thereof has claimed that the building rules as framed by the Collector are susperseded by the draft development control rules which were submitted to the Government. Thus, in the affidavit in fact Respondent No. 7 admits that the Collector's Rules have the force of law. As regards the line of multistoried buildings, including Blue Diamond Hotel the Petitioners have denied that they form part of Koregaon Park. The Petitioners submit that the numbering of the plots in Koregaon Park to which the Collector's Rules apply starts from behind the line of building referred to above. In our opinion, we are not required to decide whether this line of buildings falls within Koregaon Park. Even presuming that they do, in case the rules are applicable and have statutory force, it would mean that these buildings are constructed in violation of the rules. This argument therefore does not help the Respondents.

14. In our view it is not necessary for a law in force to have any nomenclature or to be gazetted. All the parties have submitted that these rules were in existence and had force of law (at least till 15th February 1950). These rules have in fact been printed and published even by Respondent No. 2 in all its publications. Even in the Pune Building Regulations, Regulation 227 provides that in respect of various residential colonies, special building regulations were made and that these regulations continue to be in force in respect of constructions in these colonies. It is admitted by Mr. Sawant on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that apart from the Collectors Rules, in respect of Koregaon Park there were no other special building regulations. Mr. Sawant also admits that the reference to special building regulations in Regulation 227 is to the Collector's rules. Under these circumstances it will have to be held that the Collector's Rules, at the relevant time, had a statutory force.

15. The next submission of Mr. Gangal and Mr. Desai was that on or about the 15th February 1950 when Koregaon Park area was included within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation, the Collector's Rules were superseded and/or repealed. In this behalf reliance was placed upon Rule 32 and Clause 6 of the lease and it was argued that now the bye-laws and rules of Respondent No. 2 applied in addition to the Collector's Rules. Mr. Desai has submitted that there was a clear conflict between the bye-law and rules of Respondent No. 2 and the Collector's Rules. Mr. Desai relying upon the authorities in the case of Municipal Council Palai v. T.J Joseph reported in AIR 1963 SC 1561 and in the case of Sanjeevayya v. Election Tribunal, A.P reported in AIR 1967 SC 1211 argued that on the doctrine of implied repeal, the Collector's Rules being prior rules should be deemed to be repealed.

16. The authorities cited by Mr. Desai also lay down the well established principle that there is a presumption against repeal by implication. This is on the assumption that the legislature enacts laws with a complete knowledge of all existing laws pertaining to the same subject and the failure to add a repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal existing legislation. Where the provisions of a special statute are wholly repugnant to the general statute, it would be possible to infer that the special statute was repealed by the general enactment. A general statute applies to all persons and localities within its jurisdiction and a scope as distinguished from a special one which in its operation is confined to a particular locality. Therefore when it is doubtful whether the special statute was intended to be repealed by the general statute the Court should try to give effect to both the enactments.

17. Bearing the abovementioned principles in mind, it will have to be considered whether the Collector's Rules and Building Rules and Bye-laws of Respondent No. 2 cannot both be given effect to. The Building Rules and Bye-laws of Respondent No. 2 are for the whole of Pune. Koregaon Park area is a specially maintained residential area, free of heavy traffic with a large number of old and beautiful buildings. All lanes are wooded with circa and other trees like Gulmohar, Neem, Mango. The area has thickly planted avenue. The entire area has the character of a park. Under the circumstances it is but natural that there would be special rules regulating building activities in the area. We do not see any conflict. The building bye-laws and rules of Respondent No. 2 apply to rest of Pune and for Koregaon Park and other special residential areas special regulations prevail.

18. Mr. Desai has further submitted that in any event on the 18th September 1982 the revised draft plans for Pune were published under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966. It was submitted that these plans incorporated the building bye-laws of the Pune Municipal Corporation and do not contain any provisions for separate rules for Koregaon Park area. Reliance was placed on Bye-laws 1.2 and 1.3 which read as under:

“1.2 These bye-laws shall apply to building activity and development work in areas under the jurisdiction of Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune.

1.3 These bye-laws shall supersede all Development Control Rules and Bye-laws framed and sanctioned under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 except regulations in the Town Planning Scheme which shall prevail until the schemes are varied.”

19. However it must be seen that these bye-laws are merely by way of proposals and that these were not confirmed by Respondent No. 6 under Section 461 nor published under Section 462 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. It was also submitted by the Respondents that whilst sanctioning the plans, under section 46 of the maharashtra regional & town planning act, 1966, regard had to be kept of the draft plan as published. It was submitted that, as under the draft plan the FSI had been declared to be 1, all the building plans had been validly sanctioned. Reliance was placed by the Respondents upon the unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay (decided on 6th March 1984) wherein it has been observed that under Section 46 of the Act, the draft plan must be looked at. In this behalf reliance was also placed on two other judgments of this Court, in the cases of Shashilal Nagesh Rao v. State of Maharashtra (unreported) (decided on 27th April 1984) and Digambar Sakharam Tambolkar v. Pune Municipal Corporation reported in 1987 Mah. L.J 419.

20. What this argument overlooks is that whilst it is correct that the draft plan should be kept in mind it cannot be argued that other relevant factors must be ignored (as is sought to be submitted). The correct approach should be the achievement of the objectives. It must not be forgotten at this stage that it was still a draft plan on which objections had in fact been submitted amongst others by the environmentalists. In the view that we have taken that the Collector's Rules had the statutory force, the existing building rules only permitted an FSI of 66. In view of the objections taken the possibility existed of FSI being reduced. In fact in final plan as sanctioned, the Collector's Rules have been incorporated. The furtherance of the objectives would, therefore, require keeping in mind not just the draft development plan but also the existing rules and the bye-laws. Thus even on this count sanction could not have been granted for development to the extent of FSI 1. To hold otherwise would lead to a situation where development would take place and the authorities would be presented with a fait accompli. Strong reliance was also placed upon the unreported judgment of our Court in the case of Shashilal Nagesh Rao v. State of Maharashtra (supra). In our view this case does not assist the Respondents. In this case the plans of the 5th Respondent had been rejected by the Bombay Municipal Corporation on the ground that the development plan was under review. The Government of Maharashtra under its powers under section 47 of the maharashtra regional & town planning act held that under the sanctioned plans, the property was marked as residential and therefore merely on the ground that the plan was under review the Municipal Corporation was not justified in rejecting the plan. Certain citizens filed a Writ Petition in this court against this decision of the government and the short question for consideration before this court was whether in view of the fact the plan was under review a building plan could be rejected. All that this Court held on the facts of that case was that they were unable to hold that the government had taken into account any irrelevant or extraneous considerations or that the government had acted contrary to law or public interest. It was under those circumstances that this court refused to interfere with the order of the government. This decision in no way helps the Respondents nor runs contrary to the principles that factors which are to be taken into consideration are those which would further the achievement of the plan. We therefore reject the contention that under section 46 of the maharashtra regional & town planning act only the draft plan has to be looked at and that the existing rules should be ignored.

21. The Petitioners also contend that the sanctions given in favour of Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 are violative of the conditions of the lease inasmuch as the Collector's approval to the building plans has not been obtained. Annexure I to the Affidavit in Reply of Respondent No. 2 (dated 12th December 1985) confirms that the “No Objection Certificate” from the Collector has not been obtained. The respondents do not even aver and it has not been argued that the permission of the Collector has been obtained. Mr. Desai referred to clause (iii) of Exhibit ‘C’ to the Petition and argued that what was required was sending building plans as approved by Respondent No. 2 to the Collector. Mr. Desai has therefore submitted that the Collector's approval or sanction was not required. However this argument overlooks the fact that under Rule 8 of the Lease Deeds as finally granted the building plans have to be approved by the Collector. When this was pointed out to Mr. Desai, he submitted that under a Notification No. EST/ULCTV/XXXV dated 22nd December 1978, respondent No. 6 has appointed the Collector as an authorised officer and that as a Scheme under section 21(c) of the urban land (ceiling & regulation) act, 1976 has been sanctioned in favour of Respondent No. 7 by Respondent No. 1 it must be implied that the Collector has approved the plans. We are afraid that the argument merely requires to be stated to be rejected.

22. It was further argued by the Respondents that in any event a Scheme under Section 21 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act had been sanctioned by the Competent Authority. It is submitted that the scheme had been sanctioned in accordance with the guidelines given on 11th January 1979, that such a scheme having been sanctioned under Section 42 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the provisions of the said Act would have an overriding effect over any other law and that therefore in any event the Respondents were entitled to construct as per the scheme which had been sanctioned. This argument is available only to the 7th Respondent. No such scheme had been sanctioned in favour of Respondents Nos. 8 and 9 or other plot owners. It is correct that Section 42 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act has an overriding effect over any other provisions. However the guidelines as prescribed provide as follows:

“6. The scheme submitted by the landholder should adhere to the prevailing municipal regulations, Town Planning requirements and other statutory requirements in that area if any land development is required as per these regulations then the scheme of the landholder should include such development.

21. Only tenements constructed under this scheme or building along with the land appurtenant and vacant land to the extent necessary to be kept unbuilt its per the Municipal Regulations and other statutory requirements………..”

23. Further even the scheme as sanctioned in favour of Respondent No. 7 provides as follows:

“Note — The number of tenements is, however, subject to the prevailing building bye-laws and as per the plans approved by the Appropriate Authorities.

3. The actual construction and the quality of construction will be subject to the building regulations of the appropriate Authorities, and subject to such other conditions as may be imposed by the Pune Municipal Corporation, Town Planning Authority and other statutory authorities from time to time.”

24. Thus it is to be seen that in any event the Respondents are bound to comply with the building rules and bye-laws. In this case that would be the Collector's Rules. The plans as sanctioned being admittedly contrary to the Collector's Rules, Respondents 7, 8, 9 and other plot owners cannot be permitted to construct as per these plans. Respondents Nos. 7, 8, 9 and other plot owners would be free to submit fresh plans which comply with the Collector's Rules and Respondent No. 2 is free to consider those plans on the basis of the final development plans as sanctioned on 5th January 1987.

25. Mr. Taleyarkhan also urged that in any case now in the final development plan as sanctioned on 5th January 1987, the Collector's rules for Koregaon Park have been specifically incorporated as Appendix ‘S’ to the plan. He therefore, submits that Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 must exercise their powers under Section 51 of the Maharshtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and revoke the permission to construct. The Respondents on the other hand have contended that the plans were sanctioned as far back as 1982, that it was only due to an injunction of this Court that they could not construct in accordance with those plans, that it would now be inequitable to direct the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 to revoke these plans merely because subsequent to the filing of the Petition, the Collector's Rules have been incorporated in the final development plan. In the view that we have taken, i.e, that the Collectors Rules were always applicable and had the force of law the permission granted to the Respondents to construct as per plans sanctioned would have to be revoked. On a question from Court Mr. Sawant for Respondent No. 2 has stated that powers under Section 51 will be exercised. Respondent No. 2 to exercise powers under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and to revoke the permission granted for development of Plots Nos. 15, 16, 28, 50, 51, 84, 85 and 114 in Koregaon Park area, Pune in accordance with law. However in respect of Plots Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 22 the work already having been completed, even under Section 51, the permission cannot be revoked.

26. In the view that we have taken, it is not necessary for us to deal with or decide the other arguments which have been made and which are set out hereinafter.

27. On behalf of the Petitioners it was urged that under Section 21 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act only schemes for the weaker section of the society can be sanctioned. According to the Petitioners, the scheme which has been sanctioned in favour of the Respondents can never be said to be for the weaker section of the society. Mr. Taleyarkhan on behalf of the Petitioners drew our attention to Article 46 of the Constitution of India and to the authorities in the case of Balkrishna Shantaram Dhume v. Union of India reported in 87 Bom. L.R 82, and in the case of State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas reported in (1976) 2 SCC 310 : AIR 1976 SC 490 and in the case of S.P Gupta v. President of India reported in 1981 Supp SCC 87 : AIR 1982 SC 149, to the constitutional advisers' note on draft Article 37, i.e, present Article 46 and to various other literatures which need not be set out herein. All the above were referred to, to emphasise that the phrase “weaker section” would mean those who are from the dismally depressed categories, comparable economically and educationally to Scheduled Castes and Tribes or those who live in poverty and destitution, those who barely eke out a miserable existence, those who are helpless victims of an exploitative society. It has thus been argued that Respondent No. 7 is not holding the excess land for the declared purpose of housing the “weaker section” and that therefore the scheme as sanctioned must be set aside. Mr. Desai on the other hand has argued that Petitioners have no locus to challenge the scheme which has been granted in favour of respondent No. 7. In this behalf he relies upon the authority in the case of K. Narayana v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1985 A.P 64. Mr. Desai also submits that the scheme has been sanctioned in accordance with the guidelines given on 11th January 1979 and clarified on 19th July 1979. That the phrase “weaker section” has to be construed in the light of these guidelines. He submits that in the Petition those guidelines have not been challenged. Mr. Desai submits that words and phrases in one statute may have a different connotation or meaning when used in another statute. He submits that looking to the guidelines, weaker section would mean the lower middle class people who are willing to live in small flats which are reasonably priced. He submits that the whole purpose is to see that more land is used for housing purposes and to ensure that there is no profiteering. Mr. Desai submits that so far as Respondent No. 7 is concerned, the only alternative would be that the land would be declared as excess and be therefore lost to Respondent No. 7. To this last argument Mr. Taleyarkhan points out that under section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Respondents could have applied for an exemption on the grounds of maintaining environmental aesthetic condition of the land or the purposes of a garden. He points out cases of other persons in Koregaon Park whose land has been exempted on those grounds.

28. Mr. Desai also assailed the inclusion of these Collector's Rules in the final development plan and had submitted that this amounts to a major modification which could not have been carried out without the same having been again published and objections invited. He submits that if any major modification is to be carried out, then under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act objections have to be invited. In this behalf, reliance is placed upon an unreported judgment of our High Court in the case of Maneck Davar v. State of Maharashtra (decided on 9th October 1984) to the effect that modification carried out without following the procedure of Section 31 would be void and unenforceable. This argument loses much of its value in the view that we have taken, viz., that the Collector's Rules had the force of law and were always applicable. However, as stated earlier, in the view that we have taken, it is not necessary to decide this point and we refrain from expressing any view on it. Under the circumstances the Petitioners succeed to an extent and the Rule is made partly absolute. Rule as against Respondent No. 10 in respect of Plots Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and in respect of Plot No. 22 stands discharged. There will however be an order and direction quashing and setting aside the commencement certificates dated 4th January 1985 and 10th January 1985 granted in favour of Respondents Nos. 8 and 9 and Respondent No. 7 in respect of Plots Nos. 50, 51 and 28, as well as the commencement certificates granted in respect of Plots Nos. 15, 16, 84, 85 and 114. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6, their Officers, servants and agents to take steps in accordance with law and to stop construction work and to cancel and withdraw all development permissions granted in respect of Plots Nos. 15, 16, 28, 50, 51, 84, 85 and 114. It is however clarified that Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 and/or the owners of Plots Nos. 15, 16, 84, 85 and 114 are at liberty to submit fresh plans which would comply with the Collector's Rules as now incorporated in Appendix ‘S’ in the final development plan and that the Pune Municipal Corporation is free to consider those plans. Under the circumstances, there will, however, be no order as to costs of the Petition.

Order accordingly.