( 1 ) THESE two petitions by two different sets of petitioners but against the common respondent namely the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority constituted under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 and the common respondent no. 2-the State of Gujarat raise common questions of law in the context or background of similar facts and they can be conveniently taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) A few facts required to be noted in order to understand what the controversy is in these two petitions. The first two petitioners of the first petition no. 3459 of 1980 contended that certain lands set out in paragraph 2 of that petition belonged to them. Out of the land S. Nos. 44 45 and 46-P admeasuring 11155 sq. yds of land belonged to the petitioner no. 1 as the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family and the land of S. No. 47-P and S. No. 53 admeasuring in all 40937 sq. yds. belongs to the petitioner no. 1 in his personal capacity. The petitioner no. 2 in that petition is the constituted attorney of the petitioner no. 1 for the purpose of of submitting a Scheme under secs. 20 and 21 of the said Act and for doing all incidental things for the purpose of implementing and executing the said Scheme under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The respondent no. 1 is an urban authority constituted under sec. 22 of the Act and it is the authority for urban area of Ahmedabad with adjacent areas and the lands above-mentioned fall within that area. The petitioners by their application dated 28-2-80 had sought for permission for carrying out development of the land comprised in the said application as the lands were included in the draft town planning scheme made and published by the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner no. 1 had been allotted final plots nos. 99 104 and 105 in lieu of the said lands. The petitioners had submitted necessary plans and drawings and had also filled in the necessary form C under rule 9 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules 1979 for obtaining permission for carrying out the aforementioned development in the land of the final plot no. 104. The respondent no. 1 in the initial stages obtained from the petitioners an amount of Rs. 533. 80 calling it as development fee. This was on 1-3-80. The application was however rejected by the Senior Town Planner of the respondent no. 1 by his letter dated 9 Another application therefore was made on 18-4-80 submitting the revised plans as per the objections raised in the aforesaid letter of 10-4-80. At that time Rs. 76. 50 were recovered as the development fee. By the order dated 2/3-5-80 the permission was granted to carry out the development under secs. 26 29 and 49 of the said A ct though the petitioners say that the relevant section applicable was sec. 49 of the Act. Then the petitioners were required to submit the revised plans and drawings before the respondent no. 1 for obtaining permission with respect to the revised plans for carrying out development under sec. 49 of the Act and they were required to pay almost under constrain a sum of Rs. 4720. 75 as development fees which they paid under protest. The petitioners then found that some changes were required to be made in the plans and so revised plans were submitted and at that time the respondent no. 1 again recovered from the petitioners an amount of Rs. 4720. 25 purporting to be development fees and named by the respondent no. 1 as scrutiny fee at the rate of 25 paise per sq. meter for the entire area which includes not only the proposed built up area but also open land. The petitioners were obliged to pay conversion charges for converting the said land for non-agricultural use under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The petitioners therefore filed the present petition for the following reliefs: (A) That it be declared that the provisions of secs. 119 (1) and 119 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 are ultra vires: (B