Strict compliance with planning law required for allotment of development-authority land; executive policy cannot override statute.

Disposition of development-authority land must strictly follow the governing statute, rules and master plan; a general executive policy cannot override the special planning law or expand the State's power to direct allotment. The Court further held that land reserved for a different use could not be allotted on concessional terms without compliance with the prescribed procedure, including the relevant rule-based restrictions and mandatory safeguards. An allotment made for an unauthorized purpose, or by bypassing advertisement and other required steps, was treated as illegal and void, reflecting malice in law. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered by the competent authority in accordance with the Act, Rules and plan.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the State could direct or validate allotment of land vested in or managed by the development authority by relying on a general policy decision outside the statutory scheme; (ii) whether allotment of land reserved under the master plan for a different user, and on concessional terms, without strict compliance with the Act and Rules, was legally valid.

Issue (i): whether the State could direct or validate allotment of land vested in or managed by the development authority by relying on a general policy decision outside the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The statutory framework vested disposal of developed authority land in the development authority, subject only to the Rules framed under the 1973 Act. The State's role under Rule 3 was limited to granting previous approval for transfer of government land, and Sections 72 and 73 confined State supervision and directions to statutory limits and matters of policy within the Act. A general executive policy relating to State land, issued through the Revenue Department, could not override the Town Planning Act or authorise the State to usurp the authority's functions. Directions issued without authority under the Rules of Executive Business were equally ineffective.

Conclusion: The State had no independent power to make or validate the allotments dehors the statutory scheme, and its directions were ultra vires.

Issue (ii): whether allotment of land reserved under the master plan for a different user, and on concessional terms, without strict compliance with the Act and Rules, was legally valid.

Analysis: The land formed part of a development plan and was subject to planned-use restrictions. Under the 1975 Rules, authority land could be transferred only in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and concessional allotment required compliance with Rule 19 and the limitations in Rule 20. The allotment for industrial use in a commercial/public-use area, the absence of advertisement or proper procedure, the fixing of concessional terms without statutory basis, and the attempt to justify the action by subsequent explanations showed departure from the mandatory regime. The purpose of the allotment could not cure violation of the statute, and an act done for an unauthorized purpose amounted to malice in law.

Conclusion: The impugned allotments were illegal and void, and the challenge succeeded in substance.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed to the extent that the High Court's dismissal was set aside, but the matter was sent back to the competent development authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the Act, the Rules, and the master plan.

Ratio Decidendi: Disposition of development-authority land must strictly conform to the governing statute and rules, and a general executive policy cannot override or substitute the procedure or limitations prescribed by the special planning law.

---