RAJENDRA SHAN KAR SHUKLA ETC & Ors. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH$. ETC & Ors.

Charan v. State of Maharashtra 2012 (4) Born CR 40; Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 705: 2007 (6 ) SCR 799; Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Kavanag (1892)A.C. 473, 480; Gurcharan Singh v. Kam/a Singh (1976) 2 SCC 152: 1976 (1) SCR 739; VL.S. Finance Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 6 SCC 278: 2013 (8) SCR 849; Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. v. Man ju Jain & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 157: 2010 (10) SCR134; National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar Badrikumar Jagad (2011) 12 sec 695: 2012 (14) SCR 472; Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International (1979) 4 SCC 176; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner(1978) 1SCC405: 1978 (2) SCR 272; A.K Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1969) 2 sec 262: 1970 (1) SCR 457; · The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 319: 1980 (1) SCR 1071; Ml s. J. Mahapatra and Co. and Anr. v. State of Orissa &Anr. AIR 1984 SC 1572: 1985 (1) SCR 322 ~ referred to. c D E F G Point No. 2: Whether the Town Development Scheme in the present case is formulated as per the . provision mentioned in Section 50(1) of the Act of 1973? Whether the subsequent alteration of land acquired, is . H 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A in consonance with the provisions of the Act? [Para 8] [752-F-G] 8

2.1. Section 50(1) of the Act of 1973 states that the Town and Country Development Authority may at any time declare its intention to prepare a Town Development Scheme. ]"he phrase "at any time" under Section 50(1) of the Act is not a charter for the exercise of an arbitrary decision as and when a scheme has to be framed. The words 'At any time" have no exemption from all forms of c limitation for unexplained and undue delay. Such an interpretation would not only result in destruction of citizens rights but would also go contrary to the entire context in which the power has been conferred upon the authority. Also, a proviso added to Section 50(1) of o the Act in the year 2012 states that a Development Authority can declare its intention of preparing Town Development Scheme only with the prior approval of the State Government. [Paras 33, 34] [781-G-H; 782-A-B] E

2.2. Section 50(1) of the Act of 1973 vests the jurisdiction on the Town and Country Development Authority to declare its intention for preparin!I a Town Development Scheme, which in this case is Respondent No. 2-RDA. Section 49 provides that a Town F Development Scheme can be proposed for the purpose of town expansion, for rebuilding and regenerating areas which have degenerated into slums, acquire and development land for public, commercial and industrial purpose and also for other work which would bring G about environmental improvement which shall also be taken up with the prior approval of the State Government. Respondent No. 2-RDA has not put any document on record, either before the High Court or this Court which shows any assessment of "need" or "requirement" for town expansion conducted by it prior to proposing the H RA.IENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF CHHATIISGARH 735 KVTDS. Even though KVTDS has allegedly been A introduced for a population of 16,000 per 40 Hect. of land, there is no document /survey report to show how the said figure was arrived at by the RDA. The requirement of such assessment was all the more necessary because already a new capital called 'Naya Raipur' has been built B near Raipur. Further, frequent changes in the extent of land acquired for the KVTDS by the RDA is a very strong indicator of the fact that there is no rationale behind the proposal of the said Scheme. Respondent No.2- RDA had proposed the area of KVTDS to be 900 acres on C 31.7.2006, .1100 acres on 14.11.2006, 394 acres on 3.6.2008 and eventually 2300 acres on 20.7.2009, without assigning reasons for coming to such conclusions in expanding the area to the scheme. In view of the above, there is clear non-application of mind on the part of the State Government behind the incre.ase in the sanctioned area of KVTDS. In fact, in letter dated 27.8.2008 to the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Authority, it has been specifically noted that physical survey of the E area must be carried out. However, the proposal to have KVTDS as well as sanction for the same by Respondent No. 1-State Government, was not preceded by a survey of the area, which renders the exercise of its power of ex post facto survey into an empty formality which action F of it is wholly unsustainable in law. Further, the proposal of the KVTDS is only with the purpose of curbing illegal plotting which can be served by regulating development work by exercise of statutory power vested in Respondent No. 2-RDA under.the Act of 1973. On the G pretext of regulating development or stopping illegal construction/ plotting, Respondent No.2-RDA cannot take away the land of the appellants in exercise of the · power of eminent domain by the State Government. [Paras 35, 36, 37] [783-B-H; 784-A-F] H 0 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A B

2.3. Section 2 (u) of the Act of 1973 defines a Town Development Scheme as a scheme formulated to implement the developmental plan. In the instant case, the development plan is the Master Plan of Raipur planning area. Therefore, the very definition clearly states that unless master plan allows use of a particular area as 'residential', it is not open for Respondent No.2- RDA to propose a township or a town development scheme whose land use is at variance with the one provided in the development plan. Till such time as the lands in C question is notified for residential use, Respondent No. 2-RDA cannot propose a Town Development scheme for the said land. Respondent No.2-RDA is entrusted with a duty to implemenfthe master plan. Resolution dated D 5.11.2009 passed by Respondent No. 2-RDA proposing to the State government to get the land use changed under Section 23A of tre Act in order to implement its township project either by itself or the CEO, on their own or in a manner that is inconsistent with the text as well the provisions of the Act of 1973. As per the factual averments of this case, Respondent No. 2- RDA, without any resolution of the Board, on its own motion, addressed a letter dated 31.7.2006 and approached the State Government for change of land use because it had to propose the township in Tikrapara, Devpuri and Boriakhurd villages. Thereafter, KVTDS was also proposed, published, finalised and approved before the land use was changed by the State Government. Under the provisions of the Act of 1973, the development plan/ G Raipur Master Prevised 2021 that is prevailing, Respondent No. 2- RDA as well as the State Government gave primacy to KVTDS and sought changes in the master plan to suit KVTDS. This is impermissible in law. The finding recorded by the High Court that no finality H can be attached to the master plan is an erroneous E F RAJENDRA SHAN KAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 737 finding. Accordingly, KVTDS was not prepared in A accordance with Section 50 of the Act of 197;3 and KVTDS is ultra vires to the Act of 1973. [Paras 137, 38] [787-E-H; 788-A; 789-D-H] ' Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Oevelopm~nt Authority (2010)7 SCC 129: 2010 (6) SCR 19; Bangalore Medical Trust v.B.S. Muddappa (1991) 4 SCC 54: 1991 (3) SCR 102 - referred to. ·s Point no.3 Whether the Town Devel~pment Scheme framed in the present case by respond1rit No.2- · c RDA, in the absence of a zonal plan, is legal and valid? [Para 8] [752-G-H]

3.1. The town development scheme is always subservient to the master plan as well as the zonal plan, D as provided under Section 17 of the Act of 1973. Master plan falls within the category of broad development plans and is p_repared by only after taking into account the Annual · Development Reports prepared by constitutionally elected bodies of local panchayats and E municipalities etc. A zonal plan is mandated to be prepared only after the publication of the Development Plan. Thus, it is evident from the language of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, that a Zonal Plan can be prepared only _in adherence to the Development Plan which in the· F · present case is the Raipur Master Plan of 2021. Next, Section 49 of the Act which provides for the provisions for which a Town Development Scheme can be prepared, has to be read along with Section 21 of the Act, which clearly mentions that the land required for acquisition G by the Town and Country Development Authority for the purpose of any development scheme has to be laid down in the Zonal Plan. Therefore, a combined reading of Sections 17, 21 and 49 lays down that the Development Plan is the umbrella under which a zonal plan is made H 738 SUPREME COURT REPORIS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A B for the city. The zonal plan in turn, allocates the land which could be acquired for town development schemes. In the absence of a zonal plan in place, . Respondent No. 2-RDA has skipped the legal mandate in place for preparation of a Town Development Scheme. [Para 39] [790-C-D; E-F; 791-B-E, HJ D

3.2. The importance of zonal planning lies in its distinguished characteristic which lays down with sufficient particularity the use to which a particular piece C of land could be put. The object and purpose of the 1973 Act itself foresees that zonal plan is necessary for implementation of a Town Development Scheme. The preamble of the Act clearly discloses that a Town Development Scheme is at best a vehicle to implement the Development Plan and Zonal Plan. The provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of the Act of 1973 categorically provide for "Development Plan" to mean "master plan" as well as "Zonal Plan". In the case in hand, the KVTDS has been prepared in the absence of a Zonal Plan. E Respondent No. 2- RDA is not permitted to either usurp or bypass the power vested with the local authorities for preparing town development scheme in the absence of zoning plan merely on the ground that the local F authority did not exercise its constitutional power in preparing the zonal plan following the direction of Respondent No. 1-State Government under Section 20 of the Act of 1973. A mere glance at the Master Plan would clearly go to show that it does not set out the detailed land use with sufficient particulars. Therefore, the framing of a Zonal Plan by local authority in laying out a detailed plan of land use with sufficient particulars is a sine qua non under the provisions of the Act. [Paras 40, 41, 42] [792-A-B, F-G; 793-A-C] G H Point No.4: Whether the Act of 1973 authorises the RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 739 Town Planning and Development Authority to A reconstitute the plots and change the land use apart from public utility? [Para 8] [752-H; 753-A] 8 .4.1. Section 50(5) of the Act of 1973, read with Section 50(6) of the Act of 1973, provides for constitution of a committee which shall determine the various aspects of a Town Development Scheme such as its viability, cost effect etc. Section 50(6) of the Act provides that a committee constituted under section 50(5) of the Act shall consider the objections and suggestions and give c hearing to any person desirous of being heard.· Thereafter, the committee shall submit its report to the Town and Country Development Authority and, is required to submit its proposal on these aspects: define and demarcate areas allotted or reserved for public D purpose; demarcate the reconstituted plots; Evaluate value of original plots and reconstituted plots; determine whether the areas marked for public purpose are wholly or partially beneficial to the residents; estimate the compensation or contribution from beneficiaries of the E scheme; evaluate increment in value of the reconstituted plot for calculating incremental value; evaluate the reduction in value and assess compensation payable therefor. {Para 47] [798-A-G] F

4.2. The committee, in the case, in hand, has recorded in its report only on the first four aspects and has held the last three aspects as not applicable to the scheme without assigning any valid reasons. Therefore, in providing this report, the committee has violated the G mandatory provision of providing a complete report before acquiring land from landowners which often results in loss of livelihood for poor agriculturists. The single judge of the High Court held that the aforesaid three aspects are not applicable in the present case for H 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A the reason that respondent No. 1-State government has decided not to seek payment of incremental cost/ contribution cost from the land-holder on account of development of area while prescribing the size of the reconstituted plots for which respective landholders B would be entitled. The said view of the single Judge has been erroneously upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. The said view taken by both the single judge and Division Bench of the High Court is contrary to the provision of the Act of 1973, since the High Court has C not noticed in arriving at the aforementioned conclusion that the committee was not adhering to the mandatory provisions with regard to development scheme. Therefore, the scheme is vitiated in .law for lack of compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1973. The manner in which the computation of increment in the value of the reconstituted plot has been arrived at, is vague. [Paras 48, 49, 50] [798-H; 799-A-F] 0

4.3. Respondent No. 1-State Government granted E permission to Respondent No. 2-RDA to publish its intention under Section 50(2)of the Act of 1973, on 25.1.2008 for village Dunda alone. It publi"!>hed its intention under the said provision for the villages of Dunda as well as Tikrapara pursuant to the Board F Resolution by circulations dated 12.5.2009 and 5.6.2009. Afterwards Respondent No. 1-State Government granted permission dated 10.8.2009 for increasing the area of the Scheme to 2300 acres. The Board of the RDA issued another resolution by circulation dated 20.8.2009 for inclusion of three villages namely Boriakhurd, Dumartarai and Devpuri. The Board Resolution is only for publication of the scheme in the gazette and the same was for KVTDS Scheme No. 5 and not KVTDS Scheme H No.4. Pursuant to the Board Resolution dated G RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 741

20.08.2009, a declaration of intention was published for A amended scheme on 4.9.2009. The board resolution is merely for publication of the scheme in the official gazette. There is no pro)'ision under the 1973Actto issue . declaration only in so far as amended portion is concerned. Thus, the inclusion of village Tikrapara is not B in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the entire process had to be commenced de novo. [Para 53] [800-G-H; 801-A-D]

4.4. The provision under Section 49 of the Act of C 1973 only allows a Town Development Scheme to make provision for reconstruction of plots for the purpose of buildings, roads, drains, sewage lines and other similar amenities. It may be noted that the Maharashtra Regional· and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the Gujarat Town D Planning and Urban DevelopmentAct, 1976 specifically provide for reconstituted plots and the Acts also provided the procedure to be followed for the same under the respective statutes. Section 65(1) of the Maharashtra Act and Section 45 (1) of the Gujarat Act are E in pari materia. Further Section 49 (viii) of the Act of 1973 empowers RDA to make provision for reconstitution. The board conferred power upon Respondent No. 2-RDA to make provision for reconstitution and not for F reconstruction per se. In any event, such power to make provision for reconstitution is limited to _certain specified public purposes, which does not include general housing scheme. [paras 55, 56] [802-C-E; 803-A, D]

4.5. There is conspicuous absence of any G empowering mechanism under the Act of 1973 for the above purpose and no authority has been vested under .the provision of the Act applicable to Chhattisgarh, to adjust rights of parties in the land. In view of the said H 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R 0 .A provision, mere prescription or the scope of the activity in the Town Development Scheme under Section 49 of the Act will not ipso facto confer the power upon . Respondent No. 2- RDA to alter rights of landowners in their properties. This unique anomaly under the Act may B be contrasted with.the Gujarat Act and the Maharashtra Act wherein the office of the Town Planning Officer has been specifically created for the said purpose. Further, under Section 52 of the Gujarat Act the town planning officer carries out the task of reconstitution of lands. The C Maharashtra Act of 1966 confer this right on an Arbitrator appointed by the State Government. In the light of these provisions, it is clear that under both the town planning legislations for Gujarat and Maharashtra States, a specific authority has been statutorily authorized to alter rights in property and to reconstitute plots, whereas no such authority has been so empowered under the Chhattisgarh Town Planning Act, 1973. Therefore, without an official amendment to the Chhattisgarh Act E and without following the mandatory procedure, no reconstitution of land under the Town Development Scheme can take place. The functioning of the Committee under Section 50(5) of the Act of 1973 is dissatisfactory and required the process to be followed F afresh. The committee constituted under the said Act to hear objections of the desirous parties, was a mere eye wash. The committee rejected the objections submitted by the appellants without providing any reasons for the same and not even providing any hearing opportunities to put forth their objections before the said Committee. Therefore, the recommendations of the Committee did not carry any weight. This action of the State Government is vitiated in law and therefore liable to· be set aside. (Paras 57, 58, 64] (803-E-H; 804-H; 805-C-D; 812-A-C] G H RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 743

4.6. The committee took decision to exclude A agricultural land which was formally taken on 22.6.2010 after acceptance of the report of the Committee dated 8.6.2010. But even before this, vide letter dated 15.4.2010, CEO of Respondent No. 2- RDA had made it clear to Respondent No. 1-State Government that agricultural B land will be excluded. The committee constituted under Section 50(5) was headed by CEO of Respond~nt No. 2- RDA who himself proposed inclusion of 1900 acres of land vi de letter dated 20. 7 .2009. This affects the rights of the appellants. For this reason also, they did not receive C fair hearing from the Committee. The recommendations of the committee were considered by the Board of Directors of Respondent No. 2-RQA on 21.6.2010. While the committee was hearing the objections, there was no freezing of land use and Respondent No. 2-RDA kept on proposing change in land use. This affected the statutory rights of the land owners who were entitled to fair hearing against the acquisition of land. Therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal E principles laid down by this Court, reconstitution of plot for the purpose of town development scheme is permissible for public purpose only and that too by following the legal procedure of publication by the authority in gazette about its intent to acquire land. F Therefore, respondent No.2-RDA could not have reconstituted plot for any other purpose other than public purpose. [Paras 66, 67) [812-F-H; 813-A-B; 814- D-E, F] 0 Ahmeda.bad Municipal Corpn. · v. Ahmedabad Green Belt Khedut Manda (2014) 7 SCC 357; Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana (2012) 1SCC792: 2011 (14) SCR 1113; Indore. Development Authority v Madan Lal (1990) 2 sec 334 - referred to. G H 744 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 11 S.C.R. Point No.5: Whether the proposal of the RDA to return 35% of the area of the land taken away from the land owners/appellants is legally permissible? [Para 8] [753-A-B] 8 C . 5. Since compensation for acquisition of land need to be reasonable and adequate in the interest of justice, in view of the decision of Kesavananda Bharathi case, returning 35% of land in lieu of acquisition is held to be constitutionally impermissible. This is also because the 'development' which occurs due to the implementation of the Town Development Scheme accrues the benefit to everyone. In the same way, the appellants whose land has been acquired and proposed to be developed, would have gained from the development, if at all, as a member 0 of the community gaining from the town development scheme and not in his individual capacity. When the compensation for land acquisition is determined, the price of the land on the date of the declaration of intention of acquisition is taken into consideration and not E subsequent development after acquisition since the development is not connected to acquisition. In the same manner, if the land is reconstituted in plc>ts for distribution to the Economically Weaker Sections of the community or other public purposes, the same cannot F be done by arbitrarily depriving the land owners of their Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. They are entitled for the compensation from the State Government. The State Government on the other hand, cannot involuntarily G acquire land and impose developmental charges in the same breath. Further, 35% figure was arrived at by Respondent No. 2-RDA while allocating reconstituted land. to the appellants, without any valid form of calculation arrived at by the respondents. This action of the respondents is arbitrary also be<;ause the percentage H RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 745 of reconstituted land to be returned to the land owners A vary from 35% to 58% for large plot holders and small plot holders. In the absence of any reasonable procedure arrived at by the Respondents, taking 65% of the area of the plot as development contribution is wholly unfair and arbitrary, and is also impermissible as per Section 50 B (6)(vi) of the 1973Act. [Paras 68, 69, 71] [816-A-G; 817-D- E] Point No.6: While planning the KVTDS, whether the respondents ensured compliance with EIA clearance C procedure from the competent authority?[Para 8] [753- B-C]

6.1.As per the MoEF, EIAnotification dated 14.9.2006 was issued by which Townships and Area Development Projects are put in Category-B1. The KVTDS Scheme D · No.-04 falls in this category. As per general conditions of 14.9.2006 notification, projects of "B1" category will be considered as projects of category "A" if the same falls in critically polluted areas. Then the Central Government is the competent authority to grant E clearance ·to such projects. Further, MoEF, issued a circular dated 25.8.2009, which has noted that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had identified critically polluted areas. The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) is appraising proposal of EC to the areas. Thereafter the F concerned State Pollution Control Board will send its representative with its comments. The circular pertained to the procedure of grant of EC to development projects in Critically Polluted Areas. The MoEF issued O.M. dated G 13.1.2010 listing out 'critically polluted' and 'severely polluted' areas. Raipur falls in severely polluted area (S. No. 63 with CEPl-65.45). Para 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of the said O.M. puts a complete prohibition on grant of environmental clearance to projects falling in 'critically H 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A polluted areas' for 8 months and the said moratorium was further extended by letter dated 31.10.2010. Para 4.2 of the said O.M provides that the procel:lure for grant of environmental clearance to development projects in 'severely polluted' areas will be as per circular dated B 25.8.2009, i.e. for critically polluted areas. Therefore, the effect of O.M. is that the EC to the said projects will have to be given by the Central Government. Respondent No. 2-RDA submitted its application on 17.6.2010 for EIA approval for 2300 acres of township. On 25.1.2011, EC C clearance/EIA approval was granted by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to Respondent No.2-RDA which is not the authority to give such clearance as per O.M dated 13.1.2010 since the same has to be granted by the MoEF. [Paras 73 to 76] [818-B-H; 819-A-B] 0

6.2. The MoEF in its affidavit filed before the High Court in Writ Petition (c) No.6040 of 2011, has stated that general conditions of EIA Notification dated 14.9.2006 E were made inapplicable on the projects in item 8(b) vide MoEF O.M. dated 24.5.2011. The High Court has relied on the aforesaid affidavit and dismissed the contention of the appellants with regard to the EC issue, thereby it has erred in not appreciating the said O.M. issued after F SEIAA had given EC to KVTDS-04. As on 25.1.2011, the general conditions of EIA notification dated 14.9.2006 were applicable to category 'B' projects and Central Government was the competent authority to grant EC to G KVTDS-Scheme No. 04. Even assuming that the EIA clearance granted by the SEIAA to RDA is valid, the RDA has deviated mandatory conditions as prescribed under the EC dated 25.1.2011. In the EC certificate, there is a specific condition that 'the project proponent shall not H deviate from the land use proposals in the scheme area RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 747 as provided under the said master plan'. On 31.1.2011, A respondent no.1-State Government issued circular with regard to change in land use· from agricultural to residential purposes. The land use in the concerned khasras was already notified as 'residential' under the Master Plan. Notification dated 4.3.2011 was published B in the official gazette of the State government with regard · to change of the land use of khasras from Agricultural to Residential purposes in the villages Dunda, Oevpur and Dumartarai and also from Educational to Residential area in village Tikrapara. As per condition (ii) in the said C notification, 185 hectares of land has to be maintained. The land use approved by the Board on 22.6.2010 only provides for 129.42 hectares of land for green zone. On 25.1.2011, condition (v) of the General Conditions, stipulated that if the scope of a project is changed, fresh permission should be sought from the SEIAA. Scope of KVTDS-04 was changed. On 17.6.2-010, i.e. the date of application for EIA, RDA sought clearance for 2300 acres/ 847.84 hectares but finally the scheme was published E on 16. 7 .201Ofor1600 acres. 4.3.2011: change in. land use notified on 31.1.2011 published in official gazette. 17.8."2011: In .RDA Board Meeting, layout plan was amended in view of G.O. dated 25.2.2011. This resulted in change in scope of the project. Thus in view of the F specific condition (ii) of the Environmental Clearance dated 25.1.2011, fresh EC should have been sought and obtained by the RDA but the same has not been obtained. by it.. [Paras 77, 78, 79, 80) [819-C-H; 820-A-F] 0

6.3. Section 50(8) of the Act cannot be made retrospectively applicable. In the absence of vesting of land with. the ROA, layout is not complete and no allotment can be done. Th~ aforesaid provision of the Act was inserted by Ordinance dated 16.6.2010. H G 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 11 S.C.R. A Therefore, the same cannot be made applicable retrospectively to the Scheme as it was sanctioned by the State Government on 25.1.2008 and 10.8.2009. The Scheme was finalised on 26.5.2010, by which date, no land had been acquired by Respondent No. 2- RDA nor B any piece of land vested in it. Plots are being earmarked only on paper and such 'on paper' allotment of plots have been done by Respondent No. 2- RDA. Therefore, due to the change in the scope of the project, Respondent No. 2- RDA was required to seek sanction for the project from the Central Government. The same has not been done. Therefore, the KVTDS scheme has also failed to obtain the environmental clearance requirement which is the mandatory requirement in law for initiating any project by the RDA: A faulty town develo'pment scheme prepared through incompetent authorities with blatant violation of legal and environmental procedure cannot be the reason for deprivation of constitutional rights of the appellants. [Para 81] [820-G-H; 821-A-D] E D C