The main legal point established in the judgment is the prospective application of amended bye-laws and the requirement to sanction plans in accordance with the prevailing norms at the time of plan sanction.

( 1 ) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner raising the question of law as to whether the amended bye-laws would apply to the petitioner even though the plan submitted by the petitioner had been sanctioned prior to the amendment.

( 2 ) THE petitioner company is the owner of a plot of land measuring 1. 029 Hectares situated at village rajokri, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The building bye-laws including in relation to dwelling in farm houses were published by a notification dated 23. 6. 1983. The Master Plan was published vide notification dated 1. 8. 90 and the norms for coverage and height of dwelling unit in respect of the farm houses were modified. Subsequently a committee was set up under the Chairmanship of Professor V. K. Malhotra to suggest modifications to the building bye-laws and the committee submitted its report which was followed up by notification dated 23. 7. 98 modifying Master Plan. In terms of the modifications the maximum coverage was increased. It Is stated in the petition that since in terms of clause 27. 5 of the building bye-laws the maximum coverage for dwelling units in farm houses was to be in accordance with the relevant provisions/clauses of the Master Plan, the amendment to the Master Plan vide notification dated 27. 7. 98 stood incorporated in the building bye-laws. A press release was also issued on 27. 11. 28.

( 3 ) THE petitioner company on 17. 4. 2000 submitted an application to the respondent for erection of a dwelling unit on the farm land as per the norms applicable. The application is stated to have enclosed the relevant documents. On 24. 4. 2000 the respondent corporation desired the petitioner to obtain a NOC from the Land Acquisition Department and also to deposit the levy on account of the FAR though it is stated that the deposit of levy was liable to be accepted only after the issuance of the NOC. The site of the petitioner is stated to have been inspected on 27. 4. 2000 and the file was forwarded by the Town Planning Department on 14. 5. 2000 to the Revenue Department for purpose of ascertaining the title of the property for additional levy on account of FAR. After due consideration the plans are stated to have been sanctioned by the respondent corporation on 23. 5. 2000 and on the same day respondent corporation sought, a no-objection from adm (LA ). It is stated that the sanctioned plans were to be released to the petitioner company after the issuance of the NOC from the ADM (LA) and after deposit of levy for additional FAR. The NOC was issued by the adm (LA) on 19. 6. 2000 and on the same day the petitioner company deposited the levy.

( 4 ) ON 7. 6. 2000 a notification was published modifying the building bye-laws reducing the area to what was applicable prior to the amendment on 23. 7. 1998. The petitioner, however, requested for release of the sanctioned plan in view of the fact that all plans released between 23. 7. 1998 and 7. 6. 2000 enjoyed the enhanced area and such persons were not asked by the respondent corporation to adopt the revised norms reducing the area. The petitioner company wanted the same principle to be applied to it since the only reason for non-deposit of the levy by the petitioner was the delay in issuance of the NOC by the ADM (LA ).

( 5 ) THE petitioner company, however, received a letter dated 3. 7. 2000 from the respondent corporation calling upon the petitioner company to submit fresh plans as per the new notification and as per norms prior to 23. 7. 98. The petitioner company responded to the same and objected to it and requested release of the sanctioned plan. This was not agreed to by the respondent corporation. The petitioner has thus Filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the notice dated 3. 7. 2000 and 18. 10. 2000 requiring them to submit fresh plans and for directions to the respondent corporation to release the duly sanctioned plan,

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the plans