2008 Supreme(SC) 1289

2008(6) Supreme 383
Supreme Court of india
(From Delhi High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
N.D.M.C. & Ors. — Appellants
versus
M/s Tanvi Trading & Credit Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5292 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.10951 of 2004)
With
Union of India — Appellant
versus
M/s Tanvi Trading & Credit Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5293 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20536 of 2004)
Decided on : 28-08-2008

Important Point
The LBZ guidelines have statutory force.
Well settled that the date of the building plan would be the date on which the approval is granted and not the date on which the plans are submitted.

Headnote:(a)DD Act, 1957 – Sections 12 and 41 – Central Government while approving Zonal Development Plan approving the Ministry’s guidelines dated 8.2.1988 issued in exercise of its powers u/s 41 to maintain LBZ guidelines – Further, the LBZ guidelines also incorporated in the Master Plan – Therefore these were binding and in terms of Section 12 neither the Authority nor the local authority could have sanctioned the plans submitted by the respondents, which were contrary to said guidelines. (Para 8)

       (b)NDMC Act, 1957 – Sections 235 and 241 – The LBZ guidelines dated 8.2.1988 were reiterated and directed to be strictly enforced after coming into force of the NDMC Act, and therefore became directions issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 235 – The direction issued by the Central Government under Section 235 of the NDMC Act and directions issued under Section 41 of the DD Act were binding on the Chairperson while exercising powers under Section 241 of the NDMC Act and no illegality was committed by him in refusing to grant sanction to the building plans submitted by the respondents. (Para 9)

       (c)Constitution of India,1950 –Article 73 – Union Government has power to issue executive directions relating to the matters dealt with under The DD Act, 1957 and The NDMC Act. (Para 10)

       (d)Constitution of India,1950 –Article 226 – The legislative mandate incorporated in Section 41 of the DD Act, 1957 and Section 235 of the NDMC Act relating to control of the Central Government as well as contents of Master Plan 2001, which makes a special reference to the LBZ and on the maintenance of its character, could not have been ignored by the High Court while deciding the petition filed by the respondents – LBZ guidelines became statutory after their incorporation in the Zonal Development Plan on October 01, 1999 having legal sanction – In view of the provisions of Section 241 of the NDMC Act, the building plan submitted by the respondents which are contrary to the provisions of the Zonal Development Plan approved by the Central Government under the DD Act could not have been sanctioned. (Para 10)

       (e)DD Act, 1957 – Section 12 – Well settled that the date of the building plan would be the date on which the approval is granted and not the date on which the plans are submitted – Since the building plan submitted by respondents as pending till the date the master plan was approved, LBZ guidelines would apply with full force to the plan submitted by the respondents and the same being contrary to the LBZ guidelines could not have been directed to be sanctioned. (Para 11)

       (1992) 3 SCC 455 – Relied upon.

       (f)Rules of Executive Business – It was wrong for the High Court to make any adverse comments regarding the power of the Prime Minister’s Office to relax the guidelines. (Para 13)

       Facts of the case :

       1.The disputed plot was leased to one Shri R.B.L. Teerath Ram on March 9, 1923. The plot was thereafter mutated in the name of M. Rai and Sons on September 2, 1958. A portion of the plot, which was lying vacant, admeasuring 5000 sq. yards was carved out and numbered as Plot No.47. It was mutated in the name of Sardar Harcharan Singh Duggal on March 4, 1976. The opening of the carved out plot was on Amrita Shergil Marg, South Delhi.

       2.The Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, had imposed temporary ban on construction of multi-storeyed buildings in New Delhi including areas under the Delhi Development Area and Delhi Municipal Council falling in South Delhi, with effect from 17.10.1985, till the Master Plan for Delhi - 2001 was finalized.

       3.Guidelines were prepared on 8.2.1988 and it was decided that high rise constructions in Delhi should continue to be regulated subject to compliance with conditions of detailed urban design clearance, fire fighting requirement and requirements under other provisions like the Master Plan, Zoning Regulations, Building Bye-Laws etc.

       4.On May 25, 1994 the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 came into force.

       5.The Respondent Nos.1 to 9 purchased plot No.47,Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi by a registered sale deed on October 28, 1994.

       6.On 20.4.1998, the respondents approached the New Delhi Municipal Council to sanction the building plans for construction of two and a half storey building having 15 dwelling units. The NDMC rejected the plans by an order dated 17.6.1998 on several grounds including the ground that the plans were in breach of the LBZ guidelines.

       7.Respondents’ appeals were rejected by all authorities. The High Court after considering the materials placed before it held that the order rejecting building plans submitted by the respondents is illegal as well as without jurisdiction and declared that the building plans submitted by the respondents, are deemed to have been sanctioned under Section 241(2) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994

       Finding of the Court :

       The LBZ guidelines have statutory force.

       Result : Appeals allowed.