Sangeet Lodha, J.

In the instant writ petitions, vide order dated 12.1.17, a Division Bench of this court consisting of two of us (Justice Sangeet Lodha and Justice Arun Bhansali) while deciding the issues arising for consideration, issued various directions to the respondents. However, a few issues remained pending adjudication for want of further details and accordingly, the respondents were directed to furnish the requisite details. The matters were directed to be listed for perusal of the compliance report and further orders.

2. There after, the matters were listed before the Division Bench on 29.5.17. After due consideration of the compliance reports submitted by the State Government and various Development Authorities as also the material placed on record by the petitioners and learned Amicus Curiae, further directions were issued from time to time.

3. On mention being made by Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Additional Advocate General, these matters were listed before the Division Bench on 20.3.18 in ‘To be mentioned’ category. Learned AAG brought to the notice of the Court that vide order dated 15.3.18 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLPs (Nos. 19219- 19223/2017) preferred by the State of Rajasthan and others, aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.17, while disposing of the SLPs, the Chief Justice of this court has been requested to constitute an appropriate Bench preferably of three Judges so that these matters can be finally heard and decided within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the Registry to place the matters before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

4. The matters were listed before the Larger Bench constituted by the Chief Justice on 5.4.18. Learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that hearing before the Larger Bench would be in furtherance of Division Bench's decision dated 12.1.17 and orders passed thereafter in the writ petitions. The hearing in the matters commenced on 9.4.18. However, at the request made by the counsel appearing for the parties, the matters were adjourned from time to time for further arguments.

5. At the outset, Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan submitted that the State Government and its authorities are not against any of the directions issued by Division Bench of this court vide order dated 12.1.17, which are in conformity with the existing policies and the laws in force in the State. Learned ASG contended that as a matter of fact, the State is facing difficulties in implementation of certain directions issued by the Division Bench of this court, which need to be reconsidered and suitably modified. In this regard, our attention was drawn to direction Nos. (ii), (iii), (v), (vi), (vii), (xvi) (xx) and (xxi) contained in order dated 12.1.17, which may be reproduced for ready reference:

“(ii) Simultaneously with the preparation of Master Development Plan or immediately thereafter as contemplated by Section 4 of the UIT Act and Section 22 of the Act No. 25 of 1982 and other relevant statutes, the authority concerned shall proceed with the preparation of Zonal Development Plan for each zone clearly specifying the location and extent of the land uses proposed in the zone for such thing as public buildings and other public works and utilities, roads, housing, recreation, parks, industry, business, markets, schools, public and private open spaces etc.

(iii) The sanctity of Master Development Plan or the Zonal Development Plan finally sanctioned shall be maintained and all development schemes of the various zones and the development work to be undertaken by the local authorities or private entrepreneurs or anybody else during the operative period thereof, shall conform to the land uses as specified under the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be.

….xx.xxxxx………

(v) The eco-sensitive zone/ecological zone/green area