EXTRACT FROM THE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD ON 20TH JANUARY, 1982 IN A CASE CHALLENGING THE ISSUE OF A G.O. PUBLISHING “MASTER PLAN” PREPARED BY THE HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND APPROVED BY THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH WRIT APPEAL Appeal against the order of the High Court dated 10-4-81 and made in W.P.No. 782/81 presented to the High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus holding that the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.391 M.A., dated 23-6-1980 published on 10-12-1980 is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction and the so called “Master Plan” prepared by the 2nd respondent and purported to have been approved by the 1st respondent is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. The appeal coming on for hearing on Tuesday the 19th Wednesday the 20th day of January, 1982 upon perusing the grounds of appeal and the order of the High Court dated 10-4-81 in W.P.No. 782/81 and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Pratap Reddy advocate for the appllants and of the Govt. pleader for Revenue on behalf of the 1st respondent and of Mr. P.M. Gopala Rao advocate for the 2nd respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:- (JUDGEMENT OF THE BENCH DELIVERED BY RAMACHANDRA RAO J.) This Writ Appeal is preferred against the Judgement of our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. dismissing the writ petition filed by the 9 appellants herein challenging the order of the 1st respondent Govt. in G.O. Ms.No. 391 M.A., dated 23-6-80 published in the Gazette dated 10-12-1980 according its approval for the Master Plan submitted by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, the 2nd respondent herein. The relevant facts are as follows:- The Legislature of the State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act I of 1975 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) in order to provide for the development of urban areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto.  The Act received the assent of the President on 20-1-75 and it was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 27-1-75.  Sub Section (3) of section 1 provides that the Act shall come into force on such date as the State Govt. may by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, appoint.  By order dated 25-9-1975 in G.O. Ms.No. 409 published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 29-9-1975, the Govt. fixed 1st October, 1975 as the date on which the Act was to come into force. Section 2 (c) defines ‘Urban Area’ as follows:- “(i)   The area comprised within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or of any Municipality constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and also any such area in the vicinity as the Government may, having regard to the extent of, and the scope for the urbanisation of that area or other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf, by notification; and (ii) such other areas as the Govt. may, by notification declare to be an urban area, which in the opinion of the (Govt.) is likely to be urbanised”. Section 13(1) which provides declaration of Urban areas as development areas, reads as follows:- “As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act where Government consider it necessary to do so for purposes of proper development of any urban area or group of urban areas in this State they may, by notification, declare such urban area or group of urban areas to be a development area for the purposes of this Act.” Section 3(1) which provides for constitution of Urban Development Authority reads as follows:- “As soon as may be after an urban area or a group of Urban areas is declared to be a development area under sub-section (1) of Section (1) of Section 13, the Govt. shall, by notification constitute for the said development area, an urban Development Authority with effect from such date as may be specified therein”. Under section 2(K) ‘notification’ means a notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. Section 6 empowers the said Authority to carry out a Civil Survey and prepare a Master Plan for the development area concerned, Section 7 provides for preparation of zonal development plan for each of the zones into which the development area may be divided. Section 8 prescribes the procedure to be followed for the preparation and approval of the plans.  Section 9 requires that every plan should be submitted by the Authority to Govt. for approval and the Govt. may either approve the plan without modifications or with such modifications as they may consider necessary or reject the plan with directions to the Authority to prepare a fresh plan according to such directions. Under Section 10, immediately after the plan has been approved by the Government, the Authority shall publish in such manner as may be determined by regulations, a notice stating that the plan has been approved and upon the date of the first publication of the aforesaid notice, the plan shall come into force. In exercise of the powers confirmed by sections 2(o) and 13(1) the Government published the order in G.O.Ms.No. 411 dated 27-9-1975.  The Government published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 1-10-1975 two notifications, one under section 3 of the Act constituting the 2nd respondent as the Urban Development Authority and the other under section 2(o) and 13(1) declaring certain areas as urban areas and development area. In this Writ Appeal, we are concerned with the letter Order made in G.O.Ms.No. 411 dated 27-9-75 which is in two parts.  Part Icontains the notification issued under clause (o) of section 2 specifying the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation area and 303 villages mentioned therein as urban area.  Part-II issued under section 13(1) declared the area comprised within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the other areas specified in Part-I of the notification to be development area for the purposes of the Act.  Thereafter,the Authority prepared a Draft Master Plan, for the non-Municipal Area of the Hyderabad Development area of about 535 sq. miles (excluding the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad area and the cantonment area) and the same was approved by the Authority at its meeting held on 25-2-1980, and the Vice-Chairman of the Authority forwarded the Draft Master Plan by his letter dated 24-3-1980 to the Government for approval under sec.9 of the Act.  The Government, by order dated 23-6-1980 in G.O. Ms. No.391 M.A., accorded its approval for the said plan.  Thereafter, in accordance with the provisions of section 10 and the rules framed thereunder the Authority published the plan in the local newspapers dated 19-9-1980 stating that the plan was approved by the Government and that it could be inspected at the office of the said Authority.  Thus the said plan became effective from 29-9-1980, the date of publication in the newspapers.  The petitioners-appellants which are all Gram Panchayats of several villages covered by the Urban area and development area and the master plan, filed the writ petition challenging the notification in G.O.Ms.No. 411 dated 27-9-1975 issued by the Govt. declaring the urban area and development area and also the master plan prepared by the Authority and approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 391 dated 23-6-80. Before our learned brother, the following contentions were urged: (1) The notification in G.O.Ms.No. 411 dated 27-9-1975 published in the Gazette on 1-10-1975 was invalid and void for the reason that it was issued prior to 1-10-1975, the date on which the Act came into force (2) The master plan prpeared by the Authority was not in conformity with the provisions of section 8 sub-section (3) as no individual notices were given to the local authorities likely to be affected by the master plan prepared by the Authority were submitted to the Government for approval not by the Authority but by its Vice-Chairman and, therefore, it contravened the provisions of section 9. Our learned brother held that the notification contained in G.O.Ms.No. 411 specifying the urban area and declaring development area was issued on 27-9-1978 constituted only preparatory steps, and that it was of little consequence as it was only an act of the Government and not a ‘notification’ within the meaning of the Act, and that the deliberations which precede the ‘notification’ or the several ministerial acts leading to it should not be confused with the ‘notification’ contemplated by the Act, and that there was no bar to taking of preparatory steps which ultimately lead to issuance of the order in G.O.Ms.No. 411 was not the same thing as the issuance of the notification contemplated by the Act, and that under section 2(o) and section 13(1) read with the definition of ‘notification’ in section 2(k) the order in the impugned G.O.No. 411 became a notification only on its being published in the Gazette, and that the publication of the said G.O. having been made in the Gazette on 1-10-1975, the date on which the Act came into force, the said G.O. was valid and accordingly rejected the contention of the petitioners. It was contended before our learned brother that the said G.O.Ms.No. 411 was not saved by section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act corresponding to section 22 of the Central General Clauses Act.  But, in the view taken by the learned Judge that the notification was published only after the Act came into force, the learned Judge felt it unnecessary to deal with the said contention. On the second ground, the learned Judge found that individual notices were as a matter of fact given to all the affected Gram Panchayats including the petitioners herein, and that the procedure prescribed by section 8 and Rule 12 was duly followed and, hence, rejected the said contention. The third contention was also negatived as it was found that the Authority itself approved the master plan and submitted the same to the Government for approval, and that the Vice-Chairman only forwarded the said plan with a covering letter. In this writ appeal, Sri K. Pratap Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he was not pressing points 2 and 3 which were urged before our learned brother and rejected by him.   The learned counsel confined his challenge only to the first point viz; that the G.O. Ms.No. 411 dated 27-9-75 was issued on 27-9-75 and, therefore, the Government had no jurisdiction or power on 27-9-1975 to issue the said G.O. and that the said G.O. is not covered by the provisions of Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act.  He also contended that the said order amounts to a substantive order specifying the urban area under section 2(o) and declaring the development area under section 13(1) and that the Government cannot exercise such a power when the said statutory provisions had not come into force by the date of issuance of the said G.O.Ms.No. 411. On the other hand, it is contended by Sri P.M. Gopala Rao that though the G.O. was issued earlier, it did not come into force instantaneously and that in as much as steps have to be taken for making the act operative immediately on the date of the Act coming into force, necessarily the Government have to take steps to identify the urban area and development are in order to apply the provisions of the Act to the said area, and that the said G.O. would not be operative until it is notified as required by section 2(k) of the Act; and that in as much as the impugned G.o. was published in the Gazette on the date on which the Act came into force, the said G.O. cannot be challenged as being invalid or void.  He also submitted that the said G.O. is covered by the provisions of Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh general Clauses Act. Sri Innayya Reddy, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the issuance of the G.O.411 on 27-9-75 was merely a preparatory step, and that it became affective or operative only on and after its being published in the Gazette and that the Act came into force by the date of its publication in the Gazette, and, therefore, it was valid.  He also contended that the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves the said G.O. The Act received the assent of the president on 20-1-1975 was merely a preparatory step, and that it became effective or operative only on and after its being published in the Gazette, and that the Act came into force by the date of its publication in the Gazette, and, therefore, it was valid.  He also contended that the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves the said G.O. The Act received the assent of the President on 20-1-1975 and it was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 27-1-1975.  But, under sub-section (3) of Section 1, the Government fixed 1-10-75 as the date on which the Act would come into force.  Thus, there was a time lag of nearly 8 months 10 days between the date of receiving the assent of the President and the date of coming into force of the Act.  The impugned G.O. 411 was issued by the Government on 27-9-1975 but it was notified in the Gazette on 1-10-1975.  So far as the notification in the Gazette on 1-10-1975 is concerned, it is after the coming into force of the Act.  The notification of the said G.O. by the Government is in accordance with the provisions of section 2(o)  and 13(1) read with section 2(k) of the Act, and is, therefore, valid.  This position is not disputed. But, the contention of Sri Pratap Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said G.O. 411 was issued by the Government on 27-9-1975 prior to the coming into force of the Act and such an act is without jurisdiction and the said G.O. is, therefore, illegal and void and initiate, in which case it does not acquire validity by its notification in the Gazette after the coming into force of the Act. The question then for consideration is, whether the act of the Government in issuing the said G.O. on 27-9-1975 is wholly devoid of jurisdiction.  We are inclined to think that section 6 of the General Clauses Act is a complete answer to the challenge of the said G.O. Section 6 of the A.P. General Clauses Act reads as follows:- “6.      Making of rules and issue or orders between passing and commencement of Act:  Where by an act to which this Chapter applies and which is not to come into force immediately on the passing thereof, a power is conferred on Government or other authority to make rules, or to issue orders, with respect to the application of the Act, or with respect to the appointment of any officer thereunder such power may be exercised at any time after the passing of the Act but rules or orders so made or issued shall not take effect till the commencement of the Act”. This Section confers power on the Government or other Authority to make rules or issue orders with respect to application of the Act and other matters mentioned therein in cases where there is a time gap between the passing of Act and its coming into force.  Section 6 empowers the concerned Authority to exercise the power conferred by the Act at any time after the passing of the Act.  But, any rules or orders so made or issued shall not take effect till the commencement of the Act.  Section 6 is thus an enabling provision intended to facilitate the making of rules and orders before the date of commencement of the enactment in anticipation of its coming into force.  Thus, it validates issuance of rules and  orders made after the passing of the Act but before it comes into force with a view to bring the Act into effective operation on the date of its coming into force.  This section corresponds to Section 22 of the Central General Clauses & Act. Section 37 of the English Interpretation Act, 1889 which corresponds to the aforesaid section of the State Act and the Central Act reads as follows:- “Where on Act passed after the commencement of this Act, is not to come into operation immediately on the passing thereof, and confers power to make any appointment, to make grant or issue any instruction, that is to say, any Order-in Council, order, warrant, scheme, letters patent, Rules, regulations or bye-laws, to give notices to prescribe forms or to do any other thing for the purposes of the Act, that power may, unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised at any time  after the passing of the Act, so far as may be necessary, or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation, at the date of commencement thereof subject to this restriction, that any instrument made under the power shall not unless the contrary appears in the Act, or the contrary is necessary for bringing the Act into operation come into operation, until the Act comes into operation”. x                  x                  x                  x                  x                  x                  x Section 6 of the State Act clearly empowers the State Government or other Authority to make rules or issue orders with respect to the application of the Act after the passing of the Act but before the commencement of the same. In the instant case, the Govt. which is the Authority empowered to issue the orders under Section 2(o) and Section 3(1) exercised the power after the passing of the Act but before the coming  into force of the Act with a view to apply the provisions of the Act with a view to apply the provisions of the Act immediately on its coming into force and is covered by the provisions of Section 6 of the A.P. General clauses Act and is, therefore, valid.  The order in G.O.Ms.No. 411 did not become effective or operative on the date on which it was issued but it acquires statutory force under section 2(k)  only on the date of its publication in the Gazette on 1-10-1975, the date on which it was issued but it acquires statutory force under section 2(k) only on the date of its publication in the Gazette on 1-10-1975, the date on which the Act came into force .  This notification in the Gazette is in conformity with the provisions of Section 2(k) of the Act.  Hence, the said G.o. having been notified in lawful exercise, of the provisions of the Act after the Act came into force, the said G.O. canot be said to be the illegal or deveoid of jurisdiction. x                  x                  x                  x                  x                  x                  x In the instant case, the order made by the Government G.O.Ms.No. 411 is not a substantive order but only an order intended to facilitate the application of the Act as soon as the Act came into force. In the view we have taken that the impugned G.O. is covered by the provisions of Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clause Act, it becomes unnecessary or us to go into the question whether the impugned G.o. can be supported on the ground that it constitutes merely a preparatory step. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.  Advocate’s fee Rs.150/-. Mr. Pratap Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants, has made an oral request for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India under Art. 133 of the Constitution.  But the proposed appeal does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance which, in our opinion, requires to be decided by the Supreme Court of India. Hence the oral application for leave is refused. JUDGMENT UPHOLDING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POWERS OF HUDA (JUDGEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE ANDHRA PRADESH LAW JOURNAL VOL. 22, 1979 – 11 (JULY,1979). IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Present: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.A. Chowdary. Between: The Gram Panchayat, Nacharam, Hyderabad, rep. By its Sarpanch, Sri M. Vittalaiah. …Petitioner* Vs. The Govt. of A.P. represented by its Secretary Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others …Respondents. Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975- Sec. 36(1)- Powers of the Gram Panchayat relating to the Control on development and use of Lands and buildings under the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act transferred to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority-Panchayats cannot any longer entertain applications  or grant permission of the constructions of individual buildings. Held:   The definition of the word ‘development’ is used as to comprehend the carrying out of building ……… operations in, on, over or under land or the making of any material change in any building.  The work ‘building operations’ is defined to include among other things, re-buildings, operations, structural alterations or additions to the building andother operations normally undertaken in connection with the construction of buildings.  The word ‘building’ is defined to include a house: out-house, stable, latrine, godown, shed, hut, wall and any other structure.  There is nothing either in the language or in the context of the Act which suggests that the work ‘building operations’ does not include the building operations carried out on a single building.  The inclusive definition of building operation and building read into the word development would, in my opinion, conolusively show that the construction or reconstruction or of any material change in any single building or a piece of land can also constitute development within the meaning of the Act. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 3rd respondent in Roc. No.A3/5249/77, dated 14-11-1977, and declare the same as ultra vires G.O.Ms.No. 602, (M.A.) dated 23-9-1977 read with G.O.Ms.No. 317, M.A., dated 2.7.76, declaring that section 36(1) of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, (Act 1 of 1975) does not contemplate the transfer of the petitioner to grant permission for the construction or reconstruction of buildings and to collect the permission fee thereon or in the alternative to declare G.O.Ms.No. 602, (MA), dated 23.9.77 ultra vires section 36(1) of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act (Act-1 of 1975). Mr. P. Babul Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Gopala Rao, Advocate to for Respondent No.2 Advocate General and Govt. Pleader for Home Dept. on behalf of Respondents 1, 3 and 4. The Court made the following: O R D E R 1. Nacharam Gram Panchayat and Malkajigiri Gram Panchayat are the two petitioners in these two writ petitions filed separately but for identical reliefs.  They were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgement. 2. These two Gram Panchayats are situated on the outer boundaries of the new sprawling twin-cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.  They are the units of local self-Government constituted under the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act of 1964 (hereinafter called as the Panchayat Act) to look after the local needs of their respective rural areas.  Building of roads and construction of houses within village limits have always been within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayats rules regulating these activities having been promulgated under the aforesaid Panchayat Act.  These rules have statutory force.  These rules are divided into two sections viz., (A) and (B).  Broadly Section (A) deals with the obligations of the owners of the lands situate within these Panchayat areas to make layouts and obtain sanction for these layouts from the Gram Panchayats before they are put to building uses.  Under Section (B) for these rules, these who intend to construct, reconstruct, or alter or add to a building, should obtain the permission of the Panchayat.  The Panchayat has the power to sanction or refuse to sanction the layouts and building permissions.  Thus broadly, speaking Section (A) of the Building Rules deals with the preparation and approval of layouts while section (B) of the said rules concerns itself with the giving of individual permissions.  Thanks to the ever growing rural unemployment coupled with the population explosion coupled with the absence of basic civic amenities in the villages on the one had and the concentration of all wealth and economic opportunities, civic luxuries, political and administrative authority in the cities on the other, our cities have been swelling with everincreasing population.  Our villages have not yet been completely deserted.  But they are being deserted.  But the growth of cities is mostly haphazard and unplanned and is therefore, hazardous both to health and morals.  Even here concentration of prosperity in small pockets is breeding poverty every-where else compelling many a city-dweller lives under insanitary condition if not in slums.  Even the little law which has been in force has neither been adequate or effective to regulate the planned development of these cities.  Certainly; they have no impact on the adjoining rural areas into which the cities are expanding.  Now, the State of Andhra Pradesh, like many other States in our country, has been confronted with this problem for the diear rimw on  Maa axLW IN OUE POAR-Independence era which is the beginning of our economic rejuvenation.  Therefore, again following an all-India pattern which is largely modelled on the Town and Country Planning Acts of the British, our State had enacted the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act of 1975 Act 1 of 1975, (hereinafter called the Urban Act).  From its provisions it is clear that it is an act enacted for the purposes of regulating the development of the Urban areas in our State according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto.  The Urban Act has therefore, defined the word ‘urban area’ so for as it is relevant for our purpose, as including the area comprised within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the vicinity area and such other area as the Government, may, by Notification declare to be an urban area.  In exercise of these powers, the State Government has declared by Notification, the area consisting of Hyderabad, Municipal Corporation and the vicinity area whithin 1,554 sq. K.Ms., as the urban area and the same area has also been declared as a development area for the purposes of the aforesaid Urban Act.  The area comprising several villages including that of Nacharam and Malkajigiri form part of this development area.  Section 3 of the aforesaid Urban Act directs the State Government to constitute as soon as may be alter an urban area is declared to be a development area, an Urban Development Authority, for the developmental purposes of that area.  Accordingly the State Government had constituted the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (hereinafter called HUDA) for the aforesaid Hyderabad Urban area with effect from 2.10.1975.  The HUDA is a statutory body with express powers conferred upon it to be exercised for the purposes of securing development of the aforesaid Urban area. 3. Under Section 13 clause (4) of the Urban Act, no development of land within the development area shall be undertaken or carried out by any person or body including any department of the Government unless permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the HUDA in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Act.  Similarly sub-clause (5) of Section 13 forbids the undertaking or carrying out of development of any area within the aforesaid development area except in accordance with the permission granted by the HUDA.  After the commencement of Urban Act, Sub-clause 7 of section 13 prohibits any development of land even in the vicinity of the development area, except with the written approval of local authority. 4. A perusal of the statutory purposes and the provisions of the aforesaid Urban Act leaves me in no doubt whatsoever that ‘within the development area’ any developmental activity can be carried out only with the permission of the HUDA.  For that purposes the word ‘Development’ has been defined by the Urban Act to mean ‘carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a aster Plan or Zonal Development plan and the carrying out of building, engineering mining orother operations in on, over or under land or the making of any material, change in any building or land and includes development.” 5. Within the development area, there are already units of local self-Government like the Hyderabad Municipality and several Gram Panchayats with powers hitherto being exercised by them regulating development.  The Urban Act therefore, authorised the State Government to suspend these powers and transfer them to HUDA Sec.36 (1).  The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 36 (1).  The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 36 of the Urban Act, had issued G.O.Ms.No. 602 dated 23.9.1977, which reads as follows: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT   Urban-development-Hyderabad, Development Area-Panchayats falling within the Ramachandrapuram Patancheruvu and Moulali areas – suspension of powers of the Panchayats and transfer them to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority under Section 36(1) of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 notification issued. Housing Municipal Administration and Urban Development Dept. G.O.Ms.No. 602, M.A.                                                      Dated: 23.9.1977 Read the following:- From the Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority letter No. 3753/PW/75, dated 29.4.1977. O R D E R: The appended Notification will be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. (By Order in the Name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh) A P P E N D I X Notification In exercise of the conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 36 of A.P.Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (Act.1 of 1975) the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby suspends the powers of the Gram Panchayats mentioned in column 2 of the table below to the extent of the villages mentioned against each panchayat in column 3 thereof, relating to the control on development and use of lands and buildings under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, and transfer the said powers to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority on and from 29th September, 1977. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.                  Name of the Panchayat.              Name of the village to the extent of No.                                                               which the powers are withdrawn and                                                                    Vested in the HUDA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1)                         (2)                                                      (3) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                        RAMACHANDRAPURAM ZONE 1.          Ramachandrapuram.                             Ramachandrapuram                                                                     Bandlaguda,                                                                    Kanchireddipalli                                                                    Manmore (called Srinivasnagar) 2.          Tellapoor.                                             Tellapoor. 3.          Ameenpoor.                                         Ameenpoor. 4.       Kista – Reddipeta.                                  Illapoor Patelaguda. 5.          Patancheruvu.                                      Patancheruvu.                                      6.          Chitukula.                                           Pocharam.               . 7.          Muthangi.                                           Muthangi                                  8.          Chanda Nagar.                                     Chandanagar,                                                                    Madinaguda.                                                                    Hafeezpet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1)            (2)                                                               (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9.          Kondapoor.                                           Kondapoor, Gachi Bowli, Kaneha Gachi Bowli, Kethaguda. 10.          Sriligampally.                                       Srilingampalli, Gopalapally, Nalagandla, Serinalagandla. MOULALI ZONE 1.          Malkajigiri                                            Malkajigiri. 2.       Such part of Lalaguda village which has been under Zilla Parishad of           Hyderabad. 3.          Nacharam.                                           Nacharam.                                                                    Mallapoor. 4.          Cherlapally.                                         Meerpet. 5.       Kapra.                                                Kapra. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.       By means of this G.O. the powers of the several gram panchayats, including these of the two petitioners – Gram Panchayat buildings under the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, are suspended and these powers had been transferred to the HUDA, on and from 29th September, 1977.  The petitioners complain that notwithstanding the fact that their areas come within the definition of ‘development’ area the HUDA’s powers to regulate the development, does not include the granting of individual building permissions.  They say that under the aforesaid Urban Act, the powers of the HUDA are confined only to the general authority of approving or disapproving layouts.  In support of this contention Mr. Babul Reddy, has referred to the various definition clauses in section 2 of the aforesaid Urban Act, and the other provisions of the Urban Act and argued that the definition of the word development’ occurring in section 2 (e) must be understood as referring to development of a whole area and as having no relationship to the individual uses to which a bit of a land or a building may be put to.  He illustrated his submission by arguing that the word ‘building operations’ like the work ‘engineering operations’ and the material change in the use of the building, all used by the Urban Act would refer to things like drawing of Master Plan and the word ‘use of land’ is different from the word ‘permission to build on a plot of land’.  What he said in short was that the HUDA cannot concern itself with the execution of the plans.  It can only control the drawing of plans.  According to him, the word ‘use of land’ does not take in any individual use.  He referred to section 28 of the Urban Act and stated that the phase ‘the use of the land’ occurring the section 36 must be understood in the sense in which section 28 classifies the uses as the individual, commercial and residential and not as individual uses.  In support of it he read sections 6 and 7 which deal with the preparation of Master Plans and the Zonal Development Plans.  He elaborated by saying that the words ‘control on development and use of lands and buildings' occurring in section 36 would clearly indicate that the HUDA has not been given the control over the individual uses of the land or a building.  He stated that the word ‘development’  has been borrowed from the Municipalities Act and there it bears a restricted meaning as referring only the approval of plans.  On the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government and Mr. Gopala Rao, appearing for the HUDA argued that the width and ambit of the word ‘Development’ occurring in section 2 (e) read with section 13 and the general purposes of the Act are so wide to show the unmistakable intention of the legislature to confer on the HUDA the power not only to sanction the Master Plans and the Zonal Plans but also see that the individual use of every building and land is undertaken in accordance with the purposes on the Act and the plans.  Our Urban Act is of a very recent date.  Probably for that reason neither the petitioner’s counsel nor the respondents’ counsel could cite any decided case on the Act. 7.  But, it is not as altogether unwelcome.  The definition of the word ‘development’ is used as to comprehend the carrying out of building … operations in on, over or under land or the making of any material change in any building.  The word ‘building operations’ is defined to include among other things, rebuilding operations, structural alterations or additions to the building and other operations normally undertaken in connection with the construction of buildings.  The word ‘building’ is defined to include a house, outhouse, stable, latrine, godown, shed, hut,  wall and any other structure.  There is nothing either in the language or in the context of the Act which suggests that the word ‘building operations’ does not include the building operations carried out on a single building.  The inclusive definition of building operation and building read into the word development would, in my opinion, conclusively show that the construction or reconstruction or of any material change in any single building or a piece of land can also constitute development within the meaning of the Act.  This plain interpretation of the word ‘development alone can make sense of other operative provisions of the Act.  Let us look at section 13 clause (4) and section 13 clause (5) of the Act. 13, (1)      … (2)              … (3)              … (4)              After the commencement of the Act, no  development  of  the  land Within the development area shall be undertaken or carried out by any person or body including any department of the Government, unless permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the Authority in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (5)              After coming into operation of any of the plans in any  area  within the development area, no development shall be undertaken or carried out in that area unless such development is also in accordance with such plans.           Section 13(4) for its operation clearly does not depend upon the preparation of any plans.  Section 13(4) deals with a situation obtaining immediately on the commencement of the Urban Act and lasting upto to the date of preparation of the plan:  When once plans are prepared and put into operation, section 13(5)  takes charge of the situation by insisting that no development can be carried except in  accordance with the plans.  Section 13 (4) therefore, deals with the pre-plan period by forbidding any development unless as permitted by HUDA.  If the petitioner’s interpretation is accepted Sec.13(4) becomes a dead letter, a construction which the settled laws of statutory interpretation would not permit.  Under the petitioner’s interpretation, the question of grant or refusal of individual permissions, cannot be the subject matter of the Urban Act but that clearly runs counter to the language of section 13(4).  Sections 13(4) and 13(5) would therefore make it abundantly clear that any development after the commencement of the Urban Act but before the making of the plans or after can take place only under the control of the HUDA.  The system of diarchical rule by HUDA on the one hand and the local Bodies on the other resulting in certain confusion and chaos is what the Urban Act intended to eliminate and avoid.  In fact, such an interpretation would clearly nullify the effect of the whole Act. 8. I am not able to derive any assistance from the language of Section 28 of the Urban Act.  The five fold classification made in that section is made for the specific purpose of imposing development charges and it has nothing to do with the powers of the HUDA or the meaning of Section 36.  The language of section 36 of the Urban Act, which contemplates the suspension of the powers of the local authority relating to the control and development and use of lands and buildings and transference of the same to HUDA clearly show the legislative determination to put an end to the diarchy.  If we start on the assumption that HUDA has not got the control over development and use of lands and buildings under the other provisions of the Urban Act, Sec.36 can be read as conferring these powers by granting of transference from the local bodies to HUDA.  The idea of suspension and transfer would clearly mean that the legislature intended to strip thelocal authorities of their power of control and development and use of lands and buildings.  If this language merely means the suspension and transference of power to sanction layouts only mentioned in part-A of the aforesaid Building Rules, certainly HUDA is not in need of it for, HUDA has already got such power.  Section 36 must therefore be read as conferring a new power on HUDA which it would not have enjoyed but for the transfer.  If it is so read the power of sanctioning layouts cannot be that power.  What then is the new power that is added to HUDA by means of transference of Section 36.  It is the power of granting individual permissions broadly of the nature covered by Part B of the above mentioned building regulations.  This way of reading Section 36 also negatives the validity of the petitioner’s argument. 9. Above all, what is to happen in areas where there are no village Panchayats or Municipalities who is to oversee and enforce the building operations even to the limited extent of granting individual permissions in such areas?  If we accept the suggestion of the petitioners, there would be none because the granting of individual building permissions cannot be the concern of the HUDA and there is no local authority which is entrusted with such power.  Any one could therefore build any way any where he likes in these areas.  In these areas, there would not be any rule of Planning but only rule of jungle.  Plainly, such cannot be the intention of the Urban Act.  The real purpose of section 36 appears me as suggested by Sri Gopala Rao, to be not so much to transfer powers to HUDA from the local authority as to put an end to the exercise of similar powers by any local authority under any other Act. 10.     I now deal with the last submission of Mr. Babul Reddy, Mr. Babul Reddy also referred to an order of the State Government dated 2-7-1976, and issued in G.O.Ms.No. 317, to show that his argument that the powers of the HUDA are confined only to map-drawing, is correct.  Mr. Gopala Rao’s answer is that order of the Government was issued only as a transitional measure.  G.O.Ms.No. 317 is clearly an executive instruction issued by the State Government.  It is settled law that the meaning of a statute cannot be ascertained by the help of such executive instructions.  A Statute can only be interpreted by its own language and if necessary, by its context and purpose as ascertained by a Court and never by an executive understanding of what that law means.  I therefore, reject this submission too. 11. Mr. Babul Reddy, commented on the huge loss of Panchayat revenue that this interpretation would involve his client in.  He also said that this interpretation would mean that hereafter all the villagers should go to HUDA to obtain building permissions.  Plainly,I cannot hold that these considerations are relevant for the purpose of interpreting the language of the Act.  Under Section 57 Cl.3(A) it is clearly laid down for the over-riding affect of this Urban Act.  Section 57 clause 3(A) reads as follows: “57(3)(A)    When permission  for  development in respect  of  any land has been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed  to  be  unlawfully  undertaken or  carried out  by reason only for the fact that permission, approval  or sanction required under such other law for such  development  has  not been obtained”. It means that when the permission for development has been obtained under the Urban Act, it will be valid notwithstanding the fact that similar permission might be required under other law.  Similarly under Section 57 (3) (b) it was laid down that any development undertaken or carried out by reason of permission obtained under any other law, shall not be considered as lawful unless such permission is obtained under the Urban Act.  This would clearly show the over riding importance given to the Urban Act.  The development of the urban area is to be undertaken with reference to the density of the population, architectural features and the elevation of the frontage of any building etc.  These are far beyond the reach of the financial resources or technical know-how of the village Panchayat.  The Legislature would not have been oblivious to these circumstances. 12. For all the above reasons, I dismiss this Writ Petition.  There shall be no order as to costs.  Advocate’s fee Rs.100/-. Continued...