( 1 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent-NDMC withholding the release of sanctioned building plans to the petitioners for non-compliance of certain conditions subject to which the respondent had resolved to grant the sanction.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are owners of the property known as 20, Barakhamba Road New Delhi and measuring about 0. 956 acres. This property has been subject matter of a number of litigations, one of them being Union of India Vs. Dev Raj Gupta and Ors, AIR 1991 SC 93. The dispute was about the payment of conversion charges leviable by Delhi Development Authority, the Lessor, as a condition precedent to the grant of its permission or no objection certificate (NOC) to convert the user of the land from residential to non-residential. The dispute has been settled by the Supreme Court on 23. 10. 90 in accordance with its judgment reported as above.

( 3 ) ON 5. 8. 1977 the petitioners moved an application under Section 169 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 seeking permission of the Municipal Authority for sanction of the proposed building plan. It appears that the plan has been approved by the Administrator vide resolution No. 13 dated 21. 1. 81. On 29. 1. 81 a communication (Annexure P-1) was issued to the petitioners, the relevant part whereof is extracted and reproduced hereunder :-

CHIEF ARCHITECTS s DEPARTMENT

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

NO. CA/119/bp New Delhidated the 29th Jan. 81.

SHRI Hans Raj Gupta and

SHRI Dev Raj Gupta,

3, Ratendon Road,

NEW Delhi.

SUB : Const. of M. S. Building Office at

20 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

WITH reference to your building application dated 5. 8. 77 on the subject cited above, it is to inform you that the Plans in question have been approved by the Administrator vide Reso. No. 13 dated 21. 1. 81 subject to the following :-

( 4 ) WHEN the petitioners had moved the application and the NDMC passed its resolution and communicated the same to the petitioners, the old Master Plan of Delhi was in force which allowed FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 2. 5 i. e. permitted construction of ground floors plus 10 storeyes. On 1. 8. 90 new Master Plan of Delhi i. e. MPD 2001 has come into effect wherein the permissible FAR has been reduced to 1. 5 i. e. ground floor plus five and a-half storeyes.

( 5 ) THREE questions arise for decision :-

(I) What would be the FAR applicable to the petitioners 1. 5 or 2. 5?

(II) Whether the petitioners are required to obtain clearance certificate from the Landdo before the release of building plans?

(III) whether the petitioners are required to obtain permission under Sections 20 and 22 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULCRA, for short) before sanction and release of building plans?

( 6 ) WE will take up for consideration each question seriatim.

( 7 ) ON the first question, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had applied for sanctioning of the building plan in the year 1977 and it was sanctioned and approved in the year 1981 though it was not released. A vested right accrued in favour of the petitioners on the date of the application, and if not on that day then certainly on the date of resolution of approval passed by the NDMC. The petitioners would be entitled to FAR of 2. 5 as per the Master Plan in force on those dates. The subsequent change of the law and enforcement of the new Master Plan, reducing the FAR cannot take away the vested right accrued in favour of the petitioners. ( 8 ) THE first question has to be answered against the petitioners. We do not agree with the petitioners that mere making of an application seeking sanctioning of the building plans gives any vested right to the petitioners. Since the laws relating to planned development of any township and the municipal laws are meant for the public good, they apply on the dates on which they are brought into force and even the pending applications must be decided in accordance with the law as applicable on th