Government approval need not be prior where later approval can validate earlier scheme steps under the housing statute.

Government approval under exception (iii) to Section 59(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 need not be obtained before statutory notifications where the provision does not expressly make prior approval mandatory; later approval can validate earlier steps taken in anticipation of it. The reasoning distinguished approval from permission and treated the provision as ensuring that schemes proceed only with State Government approval. The Court also noted the constitutional relevance of shelter and residence rights but found no basis for interference under Article 136.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exception (iii) to Section 59(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 required prior approval of the State Government or whether approval granted after the statutory notifications could validate the scheme. (ii) Whether the case warranted interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether exception (iii) to Section 59(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 required prior approval of the State Government or whether approval granted after the statutory notifications could validate the scheme.

Analysis: The provision spoke of schemes initiated after the declaration under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam being undertaken with the approval of the State Government. The language did not expressly require prior approval as a pre-condition. The Court drew the distinction between approval and permission, noting that where approval is required, later approval may validate earlier steps taken in anticipation of that approval. The object of the provision was to ensure that schemes proceeded only with governmental approval, so that land was acquired only to the extent necessary for effective implementation.

Conclusion: Approval under exception (iii) to Section 59(1)(a) need not be prior approval, and subsequent approval validates prior acts done in anticipation of it.

Issue (ii): Whether the case warranted interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court considered the equities arising from the parties' positions and the availability of alternative relief to the affected society members seeking sites for housing. It also noted the constitutional significance of the right to shelter as part of the right to residence and the right to life.

Conclusion: The case did not call for interference under Article 136.

Final Conclusion: The legal position on governmental approval was clarified in favour of validating the scheme, but the appeal was not entertained and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires governmental approval for implementation of a scheme but does not expressly mandate prior approval, later approval can validate earlier steps taken in anticipation of that approval.

---