The subsequent notification had prospective effect and did not apply retrospectively, and thus, the norms as per the notification of 23. 7. 1998 would operate during their currency.

( 1 ) THE present writ petitioners are all owners of farm houses, who are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in non-implementing the relaxed norms in respect of the petitioners despite the fact that the petitioners had applied during the currency of the relaxed norms,

( 2 ) THE genus of the dispute arises from the stage of a notification being issued by the central Government modifying the Master plan for Delhi by which the building bye-laws of 1983 were modified/relaxed. This notification was issued on 23. 7. 1998 in exercise of the powers under Section 11a (2) of the DDA Act, 1957. In terms of these norms, apart from other properties, even in respect of the farm houses certain extra construction was permitted. It would be relevant to extract the said portion as under:-

( 3 ) ON page 164 (RHS) of the Gazette of India dated 1. 8. 90, the table will be replaced by the following

( 4 ) ALL constructions including basement, if any, will be counted towards FAR.

( 5 ) THE petitioner apart from other farm house owners applied in pursuance to these relaxed norms. It is also relevant to note that the respondent corporation published advertisements seeking applications by those persons who were desirous of such regularisatioh of unauthorised construction.

( 6 ) THERE was subsequently a rethinking on this issue and in terms of notification dated 7. 8. 2000 these relaxations were withdrawn. In fact the position was brought back to what it was prior to the issuance of the notification dated 23. 7. 1998. Thus these amended bye-laws and relaxed norms continued to operate from 23. 7. 1998 to 6. 8. 2000.

( 7 ) THE controversy which has arisen in these writ petitions is on account of the fact that a number of these farm house owners applied during this period of time though the formal sanctions were not issued and before such sanctions could be issued the subsequent notification dated 7. 8. 2000 came into force. The controversy thus is whether it is the norms as prevalent when the application was made by the petitioners which would be applicable or the modified norms which came into force on 7. 8. 2000 which in effect put the position back to where it was prior to 23. 7. 1998.

( 8 ) A similar issue, though in a different context, arose in the case of CW 7697/2000 holistic Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MCD and Ors. , decided on 23. 10. 2002. That was a case where though the plan was submitted by the petitioners and had been sanctioned prior to the amended bye-laws, the plan had not been released. The respondent corporation had refused to release the plan on account of the subsequent amendments. The controversy, however, related to the same notification as in the present case on 23. 7. 1998 and 7. 8. 2000. This court held that the subsequent notification would come into force only with prospective effect. The effect was that the notification dated 7. 8. 2000 would have prospective effect and would not apply retrospectively during the time when the norms as per the notification of 23. 7. 1998 were prevalent. It was held that it would not even make a difference whether any construction was or was not started.

( 9 ) IN the present batch of cases it is not necessary to go into the factual matrix of each case. This is so because the only basis on which the respondents have considered the plans of the petitioners is as a consequence of the notification dated 7. 8. 2000 having come into force. As to whether any particular case does or does not fulfil the requirements in terms of the notification of 23. 7. 1998 is a matter to be examined by the respondent corporation.

( 10 ) THE issue which has to be considered and decided in the present cases is thus limited to the aspect of the bye-laws under which the cases of petitioners have to be examined.

( 11 ) I am of the considered view that in view of the judgment of Holistic Farms case (Supra) this issue is no more res integra. Once the notification dated 7. 8. 2000 has prospective effect and do