BHIKHUBHAI VITHLABHAI PATEL & ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 1051

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.H. KAPADIA, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY

Case summary

BHIKHUBHAI VITHLABHAI PATEL & ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 4 S. C. R. 1051 ).. , BHIKHUBHAI VITHLABHAI PATEL & ORS. '( v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2000 of 2008) MARCH 14, 2008 [S. H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ. ] >- Gujarat town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 1' - s. 17 (1) (a) (ii) proviso ands.

12 (2) (o) - ReseNation of land by Development Authority for residential purpose - State Government reseNing the same for South Gujarat University - Failure to acquire the land - Re-reseNation thereof for the same purpose - Struck down by Supreme Court - State Government modifying the re-reseNation and designating the land for educational use - Propriety of - Held: State Government has wide powers in the matter of the draft ~ r development plan - However, substantial modification therein is permissible only when it is after forming an opinion therfor on the basis of the material sent along with the draft plan - The order of the State Government designating the land for educational use having been passed without formation of honest opinion, is ultra vires and void -Such designation cannot be said to be in public interest as the same is not suggested by the records and has been explained subsequently - Public orders made in exercise of statutory ' ,....

,, authority, cannot be construed in the light of subsequent explanations - When the formation of opinion is challenged, it is open to court to decide the arbitrariness of such opinion - The land to be utilized for residential purposes - Judicial Review. The respondent-Authority included the land of the appellant in the residential zone. State Government reserved it for the purpose of 'South Gujarat University'. The Authority for whose benefit the land was acquired failed to acquire the land leading to re-reservation of the land for the very same purpose which was ultimately struck down by Supreme Court. Thereafter State Government in exercise of its power conferred u/s 17 (1) (ii) (2) of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 modified the re-reservation by designating the land for educational use u/s 12 (2) (o) of the Act vide preliminary Notification. Final Notification was issued giving effect to that.

The preliminary as well as final Notifications were challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition. High Court allowed the writ petition. LPA was filed thereagainst. Division Bench of High Court dismissed the cross objections preferred by the appellants. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1 Indeed a very wide power is conferred upon the State Government in the matter of sanctioning of the draft development plan. The power conferred by Section 17(1 )(a) (ii) read with proviso is a conditional power. It is not an absolute power to be exercised ·in the discretion of the State Government. The condition is formation of opinion - subjective, no doubt - that it had become necessary to make substantial modifications in the draft development plan. This opinion may be formed on the basis of material sent along with the draft development plan or on the basis of relevant information that may be available with the State Government.

The existence of relevant material is a pre-condition to the formation of opinion. [Paras 19 and 23] [1065-D; 1066-G; 1067-A] 1. 2 Opi~ion to be formed by the State Government cannot be on imaginary grounds, wishful thinking, however, laudable that may be. Such a course is impermissible in law. The formation of the opinion, though subjective, must be based on the material disclosing that a necessity had arisen to make substantial modifications \. GUJARAT &. ANR. in the draft development plan. [Para 24] [1067-D, E] 1. 3 The expression: "so considered necessary" as . occur ring in proviso to s. 17 (1) (a) (ii) is of crucial importance. The term "consider" means to think over; it connotes that there should be active applicat! on of the mind. In other words the term "consider" postulates consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter.

A plain reading of the relevant provision suggests that the State Government may publish the modifications only after consideration that such modifications have become necessary. The formation of the opinion by the State Government should reflect intense' application of mind with reference to the material available on record that it had become necessary to propose substantial modifications to the draft development plan. [Paras 25 and 26] [1067-F, G; 1068-8] 1. 4 In the instant case there was no material before the State Government for its consideration that it had become necessary to make substantial modifications to the draft development plan. The record does not reveal that there has been any consideration by the State Government that necessity had arisen to make substantial modifications to the draft development plan.

There has been no formation of the opinion by the State Government which is a condition precedent for exercising the power under the proviso to Section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. [Para 28] [1068-G; 1069-A, 8] 1. 5 The expression "is of opinion", that substantial modifications in the draft development plan and regulations, "are necessary", does not confer any unlimited discretion on the Government. The discretion, if any, conferred upon the State Government to make substantial modifications in the draft development plan is not unfettered. There is nothing like absolute or unfettered discretion and at any rate in the case of statutory powers. [Para 32] [1072-C, D] 1. 6 In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State Government in the High Court, it was averred what weighed with the State Government to exercise its power under Section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act was public interest at large.

Public interest parameter is undoubtedly a valid consideration that could have been taken into account by the State Government. But this aspect of the matter is stated for the first time in the affidavit in reply and is not born out by the record. There is nothing on record suggesting as to what public interest parameter weighed with the State Government. Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority, cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the decision making authority. Public orders made by authorities are meant to have public effect and must be construed objectively with reference to the language 0 used in the order itself. [Paras 34 and 35] [1073-G; 1074-8, C, F, G] 1.

7 On consideration of the facts and the material available on record, it is established that the State Government took the action proposing to make substantial modifications to the plan without forming any opinion, which is a condition precedent for the use of power under proviso to Section 17 (1) (a) (ii). The power, to restrict the use of land by the owners thereof, is a drastic power. The designation or reservation of the land and its use results in severe abridgment of the right to property. Statutory provisions enabling the State or its authorities to impose restrictions on the right to use one's own land are required to be construed strictly. The legislature has, prescribed certain conditions to prevent the abuse of power and to ensure just exercise of power. Section 17 and more particularly the proviso to Section 17 (1) (a) (ii) prescribes some of the conditions precedent for the exercise of power.

The order proposing to make substantial modifications, in breach of any one of those " GUJARAT &ANR. conditions, will undoubtedly be void. On a successful > '( showing the order proposing substantial modifications and designating the land of the appellants for educational use under Section 12 (2) (o) of the Act has been made without the State Government applying its mind to the aspect of necessity or without forming an honest opinion 8 on that aspect, it will be ultravires and void. The appellants will utilize the land for residential purposes. [Paras 37 ) and 40] [1075-8-F; 1076-B] " J. Jayalalitha vs. U. 0. 1 AIR 1999 SC 1912; Barium Chemicals Ltd. vs. Company Law Board AIR 1967 SC 295; The Income-tax Officer, Calcutta and Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das AIR 1976 sec 1753 - relied on. Commissioner of Police vs. Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1942 SC 16; Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi AIR 1978 SC 851 referred to.

} r Advanced Law Lexicon, by P Ramanatha Aiyar 3rd Edition, 2005; Administrative law by Prof. Sir William Wade (Ninth Edn. ) - referred to. 2. The Court is entitled to examine whether there has been any material available with the State Government and the reasons recorded, if any, in the formation of opinion and whether they have any rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the opinion. ( ~.. ,.. The Court is entitled particularly, in the event, when the formation of the opinion is challenged to determine whether the formation of opinion is arbitrary, capricious or whimsical. [Para 33] [1073-E, F] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2000 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 10-15. 11. 2006 -' &14. 2. 2007 ofthe High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in Letters Paten? Appeal No. 1453 of 2005 & Misc. Civil Application-for - ' Review No. 3165 of 2006 respectively -\ .. Ashok H. Desai, S. H. Sanjanwala, T. R.

Andhyarujina and Dushyant Dave, Shamik Sanjanwala, R. S. Sanjanwala, Meenakshi Arora, Dilip Kanojiya and Harsh Parekh for the Appellants. R. P. Bhat, Sumita Hazarika, Pinky Behera, Hemantika ' Wahi, Prashant G. Desai, S. C. Patel, Tejas Patel and A Subhashish Bhowmick for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by "' B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the common judgment and order dated 10-15th November, 2006 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 1453 of 2005 and Miscellaneous Civil application - for Review No. 3165 of 2006 dated 14th February, 2007; whereby the High Court 1 dismissed the cross-objections filed by the appellants in LPA -{ No. ·1453 of 2005. Essentially grievance in this appeal pertains to the dismissal of cross objections preferred by the appellants. 3.

The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban DevelopmentAct, 1976 (for short 'the said Act') came into force with effect from February 1st,· 1978. The State Government in exercise of its power conferred under the provisions of the Act constituted Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA) which prepared a draft development plan whereby the lands belonging to the appellants were proposed for designating the use of the lands for residential ~j purposes. The State Government having considered the draft development plan submitted by SUDA sanctioned the plan in the modified form on January 31, 1986 whereby the appellants' lands in question were reserved for "education complex of South Gujarat University". The fin81 development plan was accordingly brought into force with effect from March 31, 1986. Neither the Area Development Authority nor the Authority for whose purpose land has been designated in the final Development Plan initiated any steps to acquire the lands of the appellants.

The appellants having waited for a period of 1Oyears from the date of coming into force of the final development plan got served a notice on the Authority concerned requiring it to acquire the land within six months from the date of the service of such notice. However,. no steps were taken by any of the authorities proposing to acquire the lands. Instead SUDA in purported exercise of its power under Section 21 of the Act sought to revise the ). development plan by reserving the lands in question once again for education complex of South Gujarat University. 4. -The appellants challenged re-reservation of the lands for South Gujarat University on various grounds which ultimately culminated in the judgment of this court in Bhavnagar 1 University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others . This court in clear and categorical terms laid down that Section 21 .

of the Act may impose statutory obligations on the part of the State and the appropriate authority to revise the development plan but under the grab of exercising the power to revise the development plan "the substantial right conferred upon the owner of the land or the person interested therein" cannot be taken away. It is observed : "Para 38. Section 21 does not envisage that despite the fact that in terms of sub-section (2) of section 20, the designation of land shall lapse, the same, only because a . draft revised plan is made, would automatically give rise to revival thereof. Section 20 does not manifest legislative intent to curtail or take away the right acquired '~ by a landowner under Section 22 of getting the land defreezed... ...... " 5. The revised development plan submitted by SUDA was awaiting the sanction of the State Government.

The State Government in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Section 17(1) of the Act proposed modifications in the draft revised development plan submitted (2003)2 sec 111 \ by SUDA and proposed to designate the land under Section 12(2)(0) for "educational use". The appellants challenged the action on the part of State Government in issuing notification dated July 22, 2004 on various grounds. During the pendency of the Writ Petition the State Government came out with final s notification dated September 28, 2004 designating the land in question for educational use under Section 12(2)(0) of the Act. The appellants sought the leave of the court to challenge the said notification also. The final notification was set aside on the ground that there was no material before the Government on the basis of which the decision to designate the lands for educational purposes could have been arrived at.

The matter was remitted for fresh consideration in the light of the observations and the directions issued by the High Court. 6. We have heard Shri Ashok H. Desai and Shri T. R. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri R. P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the State 1- Government and Shri Prashant G. Desai, learned counsel for SUDA. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that on a true interpretation of the provisions of the said Act it was n.

ot open to the Government to designate the land in question as education zone and secondly assuming that there is such a power, the exercise of the said power by the preliminary Notification dated 22nd July, 2004 and final Notification dated 28th September, 2004 is not legal and bona fide particularly in the light of the fact that the earlier reservation for a ·similar though not identical purpose, namely, education complex of South Gujarat University was struck down by the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University (supra). 7. The submission on behalf of the State Government was that the preliminary notification issued by the Government with a proposal to use the land for educational purpose under section 12(2)(0) of the Act is in conformity with the powers and the objects sought to be served. The power of the State Government under Section 17(1 )(a) is very wide.

It is entitled either to sanction the draft development plan as submitted by the Authority or return j the draft development plan for modification or make substantial '1 modifications in the draft development plan by itself after inviting suggestions and objections. The Notification dated 22nd July, 2004 merely invited suggestions and objections on the proposed use of the land for educational purposes. It was further submitted that under Section 12(2)(0) of the Act the State Government can make proposals for public or other purposes which have not been mentioned in sub-clause (a) to (n) of Section 12(2). ~ Therefore the State Government can propose reservations for )>' public purpose or can make designation of land for any purposes not mentioned in sub-clause (a) to (n).

It was submitted that the provisions of Section 17(2), 20(1) and 20(2) are not applicable in the appellants' case since these provisions relate to the lands kept for reservation for the purpose of Area Development authority or any other Authority for whose purpose the land is reserved. This is not a case of reservation affecting the rights of the appellants in any manner who are still entitled to develop the land in accordance with the earmarked use/proposals. . f 8. Learned counsel for Surat Urban Development Authority while adopting the. submissions made by the counsel for the State Government contended that the State Government and Urban Development Authority has power to create separate zone under section 12(2)(0) of the Act. 9. We shall deal with the second contention, namely, whether the exercise of power by the State Government is legal and bona fide? This issue is required to be considered in the I 'ry background of the relevant facts which are evident from the record. 10.

The Urban Development Authority designated the present lands as part of the residential zone in the development 1 plan and submitted the same on 30 h April, 1981 for sanction to the State Government. The State Government by issuing notification under the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of -\ sub-section (1) of Section 17 deleted the same from residential zone and the lands were sought to be reserved for education complex of "South Gujarat University". The said plan was .... ~ sanctioned under Section 17 of the Act on 3rd March, 1986. The appellants after expiry of period of 10 years gave notice under sub-section (1) of Section 20 calling upon the authority to acquire the land. Nothing happened in the matter. 11. In the meanwhile, SUDA prepared and published the . ; draft revised development plan in respect of the lands under Section 13 of the Act once again reserving the land for education ). complex of South Gujarat University.

Notice regarding " publication of the draft revised development plan calling suggestions on the proposed draft revised development plan was published in the Gazette on 29. 2. 1996. This was done in purported exercise of the power under Section 21 of the Act ·whereunder the development authority is under statutory obligation to revise the development plan at least once in 10 years from the date on which the final development plan comes into force. 1' ... 12. The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court of Gujarat challenging the action re-reserving the land in the draft revised development plan for the same purpose namely education complex of South Gujarat University. The lis ultimately culminated in the judgment of this Court in Bhavnagar University (supra). This court held that: (i) Section 21 of the Act does not and cannot mean that substantial right conferred upon the owner of the land or the person interested therein shall be taken away.

It is not ~ and cannot be the intention of the legislature that what is given by one hand should be taken away by the other. (ii) It is further held that the statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property must be strictly construed. It is well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other authorities ). _ while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four corners thereof. .. ,J (iii) It is further held that inspite of statutory lapse of designation of the land, the State is not denuded of its power of eminent domain under the general law, namely, the Land Acquisition Act in the event an exigency arises therefore. 13.

The State Government unmindful of and undaunted by the judgment of this court proposed to modify the draft revised J development plan already submitted by the authority in purported t exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act by designating the land for educational use under Section 12(2)(0) of the Act. The Government having considered the objections 1 issued final notification dated 28 h September, 2004 confirming modifications proposed in the preliminary notification. 14. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat challenging the preliminary notification as well as the ~ final notification on various grounds. ' 15. The High Court upon perusal of the records found that there is absolutely no material on record except the noting of the Minister concerned suggesting change of use of the land to education zone. The.

suggestion of the Chief Town Planner to place the entire area in residential zone has been ignored. The Area Development Authority in the first instance has suggested that the land in question be placed in residential zone. In the note prepared and placed before the Minister concerned on 23 . , April, 2004 it was suggested that the land should no more be reserved for the purpose of South Gujarat University and should be placed in appropriate zone. The note further suggested that after releasing the lands from reservation, the same should be placed under residential zone. On 21. 7. 2004 the Minister concerned passed the order which reads as under: ".. Reservation may be cancelled as suggested. However, -J.. _ (for the lands which are being de-reserved) educational zone in terms of Section 12(2)(0) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act be provided and ~ f ' notice be issued accordingly.. " '4 .... /. 16.

It was pursuant to this direction, the preliminary ~ notification dated 22nd July, 2004 came to be issued by the Government calling for objections and suggestions against the proposed substantial modifications of the development plan. ' j . ; Point for consideration : ,l 17. Whether the action of the State Government in issuing ~ preliminary notification and the final notification designating the said lands for educational use is valid? Whether the action is ultra vires? I I 18. Before we address ourselves to the questions for their I determination it would be appropriate to notice Sections 17 and 21 which are as under: 11 Section 17 (1) (a) : On receipt of the draft development )plan under Section 16, the State Government may, by 1 f.

i notification, - (i) sanction the draft development plan and the regulation so received , within the prescribed period, for the -E \whole of the area covered by the plan or separately :' for any part thereof, either without modification, or ~ subject to such modification, as it may consider proper; or (ii) return the draft development plan and the regulations ~ to the area development authority or, as the case may be, to the authorized officer, for modifying the plan and the regulations in such manner as it may direct: Provided that, where the State Government is of opinion that substantial modifications in the draft development plan and regulations are necessary, the State Government may, instead of returning them to the area development authority, )as the case may be, the authorised officer under this subclause, publish the modifications so considered necessary ~ • in the Official Gazette alongwith a notice in the prescribed ~- manner inviting suggestions or objections from any person with respect to the proposed modifications within a per'iod of two months from the date of publication of such notice; or 8 (iii) refuse to accord sanction to the draft development plan and the regulations and direct the area development authority or the authorized officer to f prepare a fresh development plan under the provisions of this Act.

(b) Where a development plan and regulations are returned to an area development authority, or, as the case may be, . the authorized officer under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), the area development authority, or, as the case may be, the authorized officer, shall carry out the modifications therein as directed by the State Government and then . , submit them as so modified to the State Government for sanction; and the State Government shall thereupon sanction them after satisfying itself that the modification suggested have been duly carried out therein.

(c) Where the State Government has published the modification considered necessary in a draft development plan as required under the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), the State Government shall, before according sanction to the draft development plan and the regulations, take into consideration the suggestions or objections that '-·--r may have been received thereto, and thereafter accord sanction to the drafts development plan and the regulations in such modified form as it may consider fit. (d) The sanction accorded under a [clause (a), clause (b)] or clause (c) shall be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette and the draft development plan together .. _~ a These words, brackets and letters were substituted for the word, brackets and letter "clause (b)" by Guj. 2of1999, s. 7(1 ). with the regulaUons so sanctioned shall be called the final ··~ development plan.

(e) The final development plan shall come into force on such date as the State Government may specify in the notification issued under clause (d): Provided that the date so specified shall not be earlier than one month from the date . of publication of such notification. ~ (2) Where the draft development . plan submitted by an area development authority, as the case may be, the authorized officer contains any proposals for the reservation of any land for a purpose specified in clause (b) or J3 [clause (n) or clause (o)] of sub-sectiori (2) of section 12 and such land does not vest in the area development authority, the State Government shall not include the said reservation in the development plan, unless it is satisfied r ·~ that such authority would acquire the land, whether by -. agreement or compulsory acquisition, within ten years from the date on which the final development plan comes into force.

(3) A final development plan which has come into force ; ·, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be binding on _, the area development authority concerned and on all other \ authorities situated in the area of the development plan. ,- ' (4) After the final development plan comes into force, the ~~ area development authority concerned may execute any work for developing, re-developing or improving any area within the area covered by the plan in accordance with the proposals contained in the development plan. Section 21. Atleast once in ten years from the date on which a final development plan comes into force, the area ~ J3 These words, brackets and letters were substituted for the word, brackets and letter "clause (n)" by Guj. 2 of 1999, s. 7(2). I development authority shall revise the development plan The reason for the formation of the belief must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence. "' 32.

We are of the view that the construction placed on the expression "reason to believe" will equally be applicable to the expression "is of opinion" employed in the proviso to Section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. The expression "is. of opinion", that substantial modifications in the draft development plan and regulations, "are necessary", in our considered opinion, does not confer any unlimited discretion on the Government. The r discretion, if any, conferred upon the State Government to make substantial modifications in the draft development plan is not unfettered. There is nothing like absolute or unfettered discretion and at any rate in the. case of statutory powers. The basic principles in this regard are clearly expressed and explained by Pro(. Sir William Wade in Administrative law (Ninth Edn.

) in the chapter entitled 'abuse of discretion'· and under the general heading 'the principle of reasonableness' which read as under:· "The common theme of all the authorities so far mentioned .... -.. ) is that the notion of absolute or unfettered discretion is rejected. Statutory power conferred for public purposes is . conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the rightand proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended. Although the Crown's lawyers have argued in' numerous cases that unrestricted. permissive language confers unfettered discretion, the truth is that, in a system based on the rule of law, unfettered governmental discretion is a contradiction in terms. The real question is whether the discretion is wide or narrow, and where the _. ,. >-legal line is to be- drawn. For this purpose everything depends upon the true intent and meaning of the empowering Act.

The powers of public authorities are therefore essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his will may, subject to any rights of his dependents, dispose .. I of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of ). malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law this does not affect his exercise of his power. In the same way a private person has an absolute power to allow whom he likes to use his land, to release a debtor, or, where the law permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered discretion. But a public authority may do none of these things it acts reasonably and in good faith and upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest. The whole conception of unfettered discretion is inappropriate to a public authority, which possesses powers solely in order that it may use them for the public good... There is nothing paradoxical in the imposition of such legal limits. It would indeed be paradoxical if they were not imposed. " 33.

The Court is entitled to examine whether there has been any material available with the State Government and the reasons recorded, if any, in the formation of opinion and whether they have any rational connection with or relevant bearing on • the formation of the opinion. The Court is entitled particularly, in -1 the event, when the formation of the opinion is challenged to determine whether the formation of opinion is arbitrary, capricious or whimsical. It is always open to the court to examine the question whether reasons for formation of opinion have rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of such opinion and are not extraneous to the purposes of the statute. 34. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State ~ Government in the High Court, it was averred what weighed with the State Government to exercise its power under Section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act was public interest at large.

The State government thought it fit to c;lassify the lands in question for educational use so that there is a specific pocket of educational institutional area in the fast developing city of Surat where its population in. the last decade, has almost doubled. If such educational institutional pockets in the adjoining land, where · there already exists the complex of South Gujarat University, are not ensured in the development plan of the city like Surat, ). then, in that case, land would not be available in future. This would resultantly make people to travel long distance from the city area for educational purpose. Public interest parameter is ·C undoubtedly a valid consideration that could have been taken into ace. cunt by the State Government. But this aspect of the matter is stated for the first time in the affidavit in reply and is not born out by the record. There is nothing on record suggesting as . to what public interest parameter weighed with the State Government.

The question is: was there any material available "f on record in support of what has been pleaded in the reply affidavit? . 35. Be thatas it may, the impugned preliminary notification itself does riot reflect formation of any opinion by the State Government that it had become necessary to make substantial modifications in the draft development plan and, for that reason, in~tead of returning in the plan, decided to publish the modifications so considered necessary in the Official Gazette along with the notice inviting suggestions or objections with respect to the proposed modifications. It is very well settled, public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority, cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the decision . making authority. Public orders made by authorities are meant to have public effect and must be construed objectively with reference . to the language used in 5 the order itself.

(See - Gordhandas Bhanji and Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, 6 New Delhi ). AIR 1952 SC 16 AIR 1978 SC 851 \ 36. Neither the preliminary notification itself nor the records ~ .. disclose the formation of any opinion by the State Government much less any consideration that any necessity as such had arisen to make substantral modifications in the draft development plan. 37. On consideration of the facts and the material available on record, it is established that the State Government took the action proposing to make substantial modifications to the plan ).. without forming of any opinion, which is a condition precedent J for the use of power under proviso to Section 17(1 )(a)(ii). The power, to restrict the use of land by the owners thereof, is a drastic power. The designation or reservation of the land and its use results in severe abridgment of the right to property.

Statutory provisions enabling the State or its authorities to impose restrictions on the right to use one's own land are required to be construed strictly. The legislature has, it seems ·o to us, prescribed certain conditions to prevent the abuse of power and to ensure just exercise of power. Section 17 and more particularly the proviso to Section 17 (1) (a) (ii) prescribes some of the conditions precedent for the exercise of power. The order proposing to make substantial modifications, in breach of any one of those conditions, will undoubtedly be void. On a successful showing the order proposing substantial modifications and designating the land of the appellants for educational use under Section 12 (2) (o) of the Act has been made without the State Government applying its mind to the aspect of necessity or without forming an llonest opinion on that -~. aspect, it will, we have no doubt, be void. 38.

For the view we have taken to strike down both the notifications and declare them ultra vires it is unnecessary to go into various other contentions urged before us. 39. The appellants are deprived of their right to use . the land for residential purposes for over a period of more . than a quarter century. The Authority included the land in the residential -.. lo zone but the State Government reserved the land for the purposes of South Gujarat University but the authority for whose ~ ~ benefit it was required failed to acquire the land leading to rereservation of the land for the very same purpose which was ultimately struck down by this Court in Bhavnagar U~iversity (supra). 40. The present move of the State Government to desig·nate the land for the educational use under Section 12 (2) (o} of the Act is declared ultra vires and void and this shall put ). an end to the controversy enabling the appellants to utilize the land for residential purposes.

The authorities including the State Government shall accordingly do the needful, without creating any further hurdle in the matter. ~1. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs. K. K. T. . Appeal allowed . . D y