JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-Leave granted.

2. This Civil Appeal is against the Judgment dated 29th January, 1999 passed by the High Court or Delhi.

3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

One Swatantra Co-operative House Building Society (hereinafter called the Society ) had initially applied for sanction of a layout plan. The Standing Committee of The Municipal Corporation of Delhi had sanctioned that layout plan by a Resolution dated 1st October, 1958. That layout plan consisted of 98 plots. However, by mistake it was mentioned in the Resolution that there were 108 plots. The layout plan which had been sanctioned had irregular boundaries, as a result of which there was no proper approach road to Plots Nos. 1, 2, 10, 15 of Block-B and Plots Nos. 18-25 of Block-E. Therefore, the Resolution of 1958 prohibited any building activities on the above mentioned plots.

4. Thereafter, the Society, with the permission of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, started negotiations with their neighbour i.e. the Central Road Research Institute, to straighten out the boundaries. As a result of these negotiations the boundaries of the Society could be straightened out. In straightening out the boundaries Plot Nos. E-25 and C-23 went to the shares of the Central Road Research Institute. Thus, these two plots ceased to exist. The Society then submitted a revised layout plan to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and asked for permission to exchange lands with the Central Road Research Institute in order to straighten out the boundaries. The Municipal Corporation by its Resolution No.158 dated 8th May, 1964 permitted exchange of land and sanctioned the revised layout plan but still prohibited building activities on Plots Nos. 1, 2 and 10 to 15 of Block-B and 18 to 25 of Block-E. We have seen the revised layout plan which had been submitted for approval at this stage. It is clear from the revised layout plan that Plot No. E-25 no longer existed and that there was no plot -E-25 (new). Thus, it is clear that Plot No. E-25 was mentioned in the Resolution by mistake. The reference to Plot No. E-25 in this Resolution clearly cannot be to any plot by number E-25 (New) because at this stage no new plots had been carved out by the Society.

5. The Society then constructed roads and applied for permission to allow building activities on all the plots. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi by Resolution No. 588 dated 25th August, 1965 permitted building activities on Plots Nos. 1, 2, 10 to 15 in Block-B and Plots Nos. 18 to 25 in Block-E. The layout plan which should be accompanying this Resolution has been misplaced in the records of the Municipal Corporation. However admittedly the permission to build was restricted to 98 plots only.

6. In the meantime, taking advantage of the fact that in the Resolution of 1958 the number or plots had been mentioned as 108, carved out additional plots. The Society issued a Circular dated 21st July, 1965. That Circular set out that the Society; had exchanged irregular pieces of land on the boundary of the colony with the Central Road Research Institute as a result of which irregular pieces of land had disappeared and that as a result of this exchange some more regular plots were being carved out. The Circular made it clear that a revised layout plan for these new plots would have to be submitted to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for sanction and allotment would only be conditional on sanction of the layout plan being received from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Circular also made it clear that in case the Municipal Corporation of Delhi rejected the revised layout plan or passed it with modifications, the allottees who would be allotted these new plots, would get a refund of the deposits after deduction of expenses. The Circular made it clear that only those persons who accepted this conditions and stipulations should apply for allotment of the plots.

7. The mother of the Appellant accepted these conditions and applied