A person who permits another to use the land in contravention of the Master Plan is liable to be punished under S. 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

( 1 ). In the writ petition, the petitioners had challenged Vires of Ss. 4 and 29 (2) of the Act. on the ground that these violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 (l) (f) of the Constitution. Mr. R P. Kapur, petitioner No. 1 who appeared in person and argued the case both on his behalf and on behalf of the other petitioners, did not press this ground at the time of the arguments in view of the Presidential Order suspending the invocation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India during the Emergency which was subse-quently ratified by Parliament. Mr. Kapur, however challenged the vires of section 29 (2) of the Act on the ground that it was an arbitrary piece of legislation and did not lay down any guidelines for the imposition of penalties provided under section 29 (2) of the Act. In support of this ground, he argued that the penalty provided under section 29 (2) of the Act was far too excessive in considering the nature of the offence, and that a person convicted under this section was liable to be sentenced to the maximum penalty under the section irrespective of the gravity or otherwise of the offence committed by him. Even if we accept the argument that the penalty provided under the Act is too severe, section 29 (2) of the Act cannot be held to be ultra vires on that ground. The vires of the section cannot be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. So far as the contention that the penalty provided in the section is too severe considering the nature of the offence is concerned, this is a matter entirely within which for a the competence of the Legislature which provided a particular penalty for a a particular offence and it is not within the competence of the Court to say that the penalty for a particular offence is excessive. As regards the other contention that no guidelines have been provided in the section for levy of the penalty, the simple answer is that no such guide lines can be provided as the penalty has to be levided only by a Court having regard to the facts and circumstances in each case under section 29 (2) of the Act. We have, therefore, to hold that Section 14 and 29 (2) of the Act do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.

( 2 ). The next contention of Mr. Kapur is that the provisions of Section 14 of the Act do not apply to the petitioners as no zonal plan has been prepared for the area in which Khasra Nos. 373, 374 and 375 are situated, and that in the absence of a zonal plan for (his area, it cannot be said that the petitioners have violated the provisions of Section 14 of the Act by the alleged permission given by them to respondents 3 to 5 for the use of the land for commercial purposes. Mr. Kapur further contends that the prosecution of the petitioners is based upon an alleged use of the purpose for which the land has been earmarked in the zonal plan, and that in fact no zonal plan had been published for the land in question. In this connection, he has referred to a zonal map filed by the prosecution in the course of the evidence of Public Witness. I, :shri Shamlm Haider, which has been marked as Ex. Public Witness. 1/c. It is first necessary to clarify the position on the basis of which Mr. Kapur appears to have advanced this argument. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have made use of the land in question in violation of any zonal plan. The case of the prosecution, on the other hand, is that the use of the land by the petitioners was in violation of the Master Plan. Ex Public Witness. 1/c which is described as a zonal map is not the zonal development plan contemplated by Sections 8 and 14 of the Act, but is a map which is prepared as part of the Master Plan itseif. The nature of these zonal maps has been described by this Court in B T. Many. hani Vs. D. D A. (AIR 1974 Delhi 1959 -1974 RLR. 1) as follows :--

"then at pages 5 onwards it describes the land-use plan for urban Del