Back
2004 Supreme(Del) 385
High Court Of Delhi
TANVI TRADING AND CREDIT PVT.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - Respondent
W.P.(C.) 4154 of 2000
Decided On : 05/19/2004
HIMA KOHLI, LALA RAM GUPTA, MANISH VASHISHT, Navin Chawla, RAJU RAMACHANDRAN
Headnote:
The Court held that the guidelines issued by the Central Government in 1988 were not binding on the respondent council as there was no provision in the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 analogous to Section 235 of the Act as when the aforesaid guidelines were issued the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 were applicable to the area falling under the jurisdiction of NDMC. Moreover, as noted above the said guidelines were interim in nature and operative till formulation of Master Plan, 2001. The Master Plan, 2001 came into force on 1st August, 1990 and as observed above the impugned order of rejection does not indicate that any further directions were issued under the Master Plan, 2001 and the building plans submitted by the appellants were not in consonance with those guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a plot of land bearing No. 47, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi measuring 5000 sq. yards through a registered sale deed executed by this Court in execution of a decree passed by this Court in Suit No. 307/93. The petitioner approached the respondent/ndmc with the request to sanction the building plans. NDMC refused to receive the building plans. Thereafter, a direction was issued by LT. Governor on 22. 2. 1998, directing the NDMC to receive building plans in respect of the said plot and process the same in accordance with law. In spite of that NDMC refused to accept the building plans and it was again in April, 1998, LT. Governor directed the NDMC to receive the building plans and process the same in accordance with law. Since April, 1998, the building plans has not been sanctioned by the respondent. The ground of rejection vide letter dated 17. 6. 1998 is at page 70 of the paper book. The main controversy revolves around ground nos. 5 and 7of the said rejection letter.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the guidelines issued by the Central Government in 1988 were not binding on the respondent council as there was no provision in the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 analogous to Section 235 of the Act as when the aforesaid guidelines were issued the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 were applicable to the area falling under the jurisdiction of NDMC. Moreover, as noted above the said guidelines were interim in nature and operative till formulation of Master Plan, 2001. The Master Plan, 2001 came into force on 1st August, 1990 and as observed above the impugned order of rejection does not indicate that any further directions were issued under the Master Plan, 2001 and the building plans submitted by the appellants were not in consonance with those guidelines.
Issues: Whether the guidelines issued by the Central Government in 1988 were binding on the respondent council? Whether the guidelines issued by the Central Government in 1988 were interim in nature and operative till formulation of Master Plan, 2001?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the guidelines issued by the Central Government in 1988 were not binding on the respondent council as there was no provision in the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 analogous to Section 235 of the Act as when the aforesaid guidelines were issued the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 were applicable to the area falling under the jurisdiction of NDMC. Moreover, as noted above the said guidelines were interim in nature and operative till formulation of Master Plan, 2001. The Master Plan, 2001 came into force on 1st August, 1990 and as observed above the impugned order of rejection does not indicate that any further directions were issued under the Master Plan, 2001 and the building plans submitted by the appellants were not in consonance with those guidelines.
Final Decision: The Court held that the guidelines issued by the Central Government in 1988 were not binding on the respondent council as there was no provision in the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 analogous to Section 235 of the Act as when the aforesaid guidelines were issued the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 were applicable to the area falling under the jurisdiction of NDMC. Moreover, as noted above the said guidelines were interim in nature and operative till formulation of Master Plan, 2001. The Master Plan, 2001 came into force on 1st August, 1990 and as observed above the impugned order of rejection does not indicate that any further directions were issued under the Master Plan, 2001 and the building plans submitted by the appellants were not in consonance with those guidelines.
( 1 ) RULE D. B. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT ON 28. 10. 1994, THE PETITIONER PURCHASED A PLOT of LAND BEARING NO. 47, AMRITA SHERGIL MARG, NEW DELHI MEASURING 5000 SQ. YARDS through A REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THIS COURT IN EXECUTION OF A DECREE PASSED by THIS COURT IN SUIT NO. 307/93. THE SAID PLOT WAS MUTATED IN THE NAME OF THE petitioner ON 22nd MARCH, 1996. THEREAFTER, THE PETITIONER APPROACHED THE respondent/ndmc WITH THE REQUEST TO SANCTION THE BUILDING PLANS. NDMC refused TO RECEIVE THE BUILDING PLANS. THEREAFTER, A DIRECTION WAS ISSUED BY LT. GOVERNOR ON 22. 2. 1998, DIRECTING THE NDMC TO RECEIVE BUILDING PLANS IN RESPECT OF the SAID PLOT AND PROCESS THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN SPITE OF THAT NDMC refused TO ACCEPT THE BUILDING PLANS AND IT WAS AGAIN IN APRIL, 1998, LT. GOVERNOR directed THE NDMC TO RECEIVE THE BUILDING PLANS AND PROCESS THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE with LAW. SINCE APRIL, 1998, THE BUILDING PLANS HAS NOT BEEN SANCTIONED BY THE respondent. THE GROUND OF REJECTION VIDE LETTER DATED 17. 6. 1998 IS AT PAGE 70 OF THE paper BOOK. THE MAIN CONTROVERSY REVOLVES AROUND GROUND NOS. 5 and 7of THE SAID rejection LETTER. SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW:
" 5. SINCE THE PROPOSAL IS FALLING IN THE LUTYEN s BUNGALOW ZONE AND MERE ARE no APPLICABLE NORMS W. R. T. GROUND COVERAGE, FAR FOR SUCH A PLOT available/prescribed IN THE GUIDELINES AS SUCH CASE STANDS REFERRED TO THE MINISTRY OF urban AFFAIRS and EMPLOYMENT AND REPLY IS STILL AWAITED. 7. AS PER THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY DATED 8. 2. 88 FOR THE VACANT PLOT in THE LUTYEN s BUNGALOW ZONE, THE HEIGHT OF THE BUNGALOW WHICH IS THE lowest OF THOSE ON THE ADJOINING PLOTS IS PERMITTED, WHEREAS THE BIFURCATED PLOT and CONSTRUCTION ON PLOT NO. 3a PRITHVIRAJ ROAD IS A SINGLE STOREY BUILDING AS such PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IS NOT PERMITTED. "aggrieved BY THE SAID REJECTION, THE PETITIONER FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE tribunal, MCD, DELHI AS PROVIDED UNDER THE NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACT, 1994. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THOUGH AGREED WITH THE PETITIONER IN THE APPEAL AND held THAT THE REJECTION OF THE PLANS WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, HOWEVER, still REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO THE NDMC. THEREAFTER THE PETITIONERS CHALLENGED THE order OF REMAND AND LIMITED TO THAT EXTENT FILED FRESH APPEAL BEFORE THE LT. GOVERNOR of DELHI. THE LT. GOVERNOR REJECTED THE APPEAL AND UPHELD THE THE ORDER OF REMAND. AGGRIEVED BY BOTH THESE AFORESAID ORDERS, THE PETITIONER HAS NOW FILED THE PRESENT appeal BEFORE US.
( 2 ) MR. LALA RAM GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER HAS contended THAT ONCE THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT REJECTION OF THE PLANS ON THE BASIS OF THE guidelines ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT and EMPLOYMENT DATED 8. 2. 88 WAS UNSUSTAINABLE AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE SAME WAS NOT BINDING ON the RESPONDENT COUNCIL AS THERE WAS NO ANALOGOUS PROVISION IN THE NEW DELHI municipal COUNCIL ACT AND THE SAID GUIDELINES WERE INTERIM IN NATURE AND WERE operative TILL FORMULATION OF MASTER PLAN 2001 AND THE MASTER PLAN 2001 HAVING COME into FORCE, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OUGHT NOT TO HAVE REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO THE chairperson AS THERE WAS NO OTHER GROUND OF REJECTION CONVEYED TO THE APPELLANT AS envisaged UNDER SECTION 241 (2) OF THE NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACT.
( 3 ) MR. GUPTA HAS CONTENDED THAT APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LT. GOVERNOR under SECTION 256 OF THE NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACT, 1994. THE LT. GOVERNOR also COMMITTED AN ERROR AS THE LT. GOVERNOR REVERSED THE FINDING OF THE APPELLATE tribunal TO THEEFFECT THAT THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT and EMPLOYMENT DATED 8. 2. 88 WERE VALID AND AGAIN DIRECTED THE PETITIONER TO GO before THE CHAIRPERSON, NDMC FOR HEARING OF THE MATTER AFRESH. LEARNED COUNSEL for THE PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LT. GOVERNOR DIRECTING remand OF THE CASE TO THE CHAIRPERSON FOR SCRUTINIZING THE BUILDING PLANS AFRESH WAS not PERMISSIBLE IN
