Judgment

DUTT, J.:- The subject-matter of this appeal by special leave is the permission for development of the land granted in favour of respondent 5 who proposed to construct a five-star hotel on a tract of land measuring 44,820.49 square yards at Bandra, Bombay, bearing R. S. Nos. 416(Part) and 417. The land in question had been purchased by respondent 5, Enjay Estates Pvt. Ltd., from its erstwhile owner, Byramji Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. In the 1966 sanctioned Development Plan of Greater Bombay, the said land was shown in the residential zone and a contiguous parcel of land measuring 18,000 sq. yds. was shown as a green belt.

2. With a view to developing the disputed land, respondent 5 submitted a plan to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for the construction of a five star hotel. The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, however, rejected the plan on the sole ground that it was proposed to earmark the said land under reference as a recreational ground with suitable internal network of roads during the revision of the development plan which was in the offing. Being aggrieved by the said rejection of the plan, respondent 5 preferred an appeal to the Government of Maharashtra under S. 47 Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

3. The appellants, who are rate-payers of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and claim to be members of various ecological action groups, appeared in the appeal and opposed the same contending, inter alia, that the whole of the said land should be kept reserved for a green belt or recreational ground in the interest of the general public.

4. The appeal was heard by the Minister of State for Urban Development, respondent 2 herein. Respondent 2 set aside the order of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation rejecting the plan submitted by respondent 5 after hearing the petitioners as also the Municipal Commissioner and directed sanctioning of the plan on certain conditions which will be referred to later in this judgment.

5. The Municipal Corporation accepted the appellate order and did not challenge the order of respondent 2. But the appellants filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the order of respondent 2 granting sanction of the plan submitted by respondent 5 for the construction of a hotel on the said land. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment under appeal.

6. At this stage, we may refer to some of the provisions of the Act. It is an Act to make provision for planning the development and use of land in regions established for that purpose and for the constitution of Regional Planning Boards therefor; to make better provisions for the preparation of Development Plans with a view to ensuring that town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their execution is made effective; to provide for the creation of new towns by means of Development Authorities; to make provisions for the compulsory acquisition of land required for public purposes in respect of the plans; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. Section 2(9) defines "Development Plan" to mean a plan for the development or re-development of the area within the jurisdiction of a Planning Authority and includes revision of a development plan and proposals of a Special planning authority for development of land within its jurisdiction. Under S. 2(19), "Planning Authority" means a local authority, and includes a Special Planning Authority constituted or appointed under S. 40. Chapter III of the Act contains provisions for the development plan. Section, 23 provides for the declaration of intention by the Planning Authority to prepare a development plan. Section 26 provides for the preparation and the publication of notice of draft development plan. Under S. 30, the Planning Authority has to submit the draft development plan to the State Government for sanction. Section 31 provides for the sanct