( 1 ) IN this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who are residents of village Bhesan in Choryasi taluka of Surat district have brought in challenge the development plan pertaining to village Bhesan sanctioned by the State of Gujarat under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 (the Act for short) Before we refer to the main contentions canvassed in this petition it will be necessity to have a look at a few introductory facts. Introductory facts: The petitioners are agriculturists and are residing at village Bhesan in Choryasi taluka of Surat district. It is their case that their lands are being irrigated by canal water supplied to them by the State authorities. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Gujarat respondent No 2 is the Special Land Acquisition Officer while respondent No. 3 is a body corporate known as Surat Urban Development Authority functioning under the provisions of the Act; while respondent No. 4 is the Chief Executive Authority of respondents No. 2. Respondent No. 5 is Surat Municipal Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 The case of the petitioners is that the development plan for the area was notified by the competent authority under the provisions of Sec. 9 of the Act years back. That after inviting objections from the members of the publics the said development plan was submitted to the first respondent-State of Gujarat by the competent authority as per the provisions of Sec. 16 of the Act. The competent authority sent the said plan for sanction of the State Government on 6-8-1981. The first respondent sanctioned the said plan on 31-1-1986. In the meantime the second respondent issued notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking to acquire the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of drainage disposal scheme for respondent No. 5 Corporation. The petitioners case is that even under the development plan which is sanctioned the said lands are reserved for the very same purpose. Apprehending danger to the possession of their lands on account-of the aforesaid developments the petitioners have filed that petition It is pertinent to note at this stage that in this petition land acquisition notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are not challenged. All that is challenged is sanctioned development plan under the Act. It is now time for us to refer to the main contentions canvassed in this petition by the learned Advocate for the petitioners.

( 2 ) CONTENTIONS of the petitioners: (I) Development plan sanctioned by the State of Gujarat under Sec. 17 of the Act is null and void as it is sanctioned beyond the prescribed period. Under these circumstances it has lapsed and it has no legal efficacy. (II) While finalising the development plan the petitioners were not heard and therefore also the development plan is had. (III) Reservation of the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of Surat Municipal Corporation when these lands are beyond the Municipal Corporation limits is patently had and ultra vires the Act. (IV) Other Kharaba lands are available in the vicinity. There are also villages situated round about and there are available lands even within the municipal limits. Therefore exercise of the powers under Sec. 17 of the Act for reserving these lands for the Corporation is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. (V) As per the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents especially Surat Municipal Corporation it becomes patent that there are also other lands available with the Corporation being already acquired from village Jehangirabad and therefore there is no need for the Surat Municipal Corporation to get additional lands reserved for the purpose of drainage disposal scheme of the Surat Municipal Corporation under the impugned plan. . . . . . . .

( 3 ) WE shall deal with these contentions seriatim. So far as the firs