High Court Of Delhi
RAVINDRA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 2544 of 1986
Decided On : 04/30/1992
Held:
Under Section 9 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (in short called the DD Act) every Master Plan after its approval by the Delhi Development Authority is required to be submitted to the Central Government for approval and that government may either approve the plan with or without modification or reject the same with directions to the authority to prepare a fresh plan according to such directions. Even after the Master Plan has come into operation, the Central Government /Authority may make any modification in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 11A of the aforesaid Act. Under Section 14 of this Act no person shall use any land or building otherwise than in conformity with the Master Plan. Under Section 41 (1) of this Act, the Authority shall carry out each direction as may be issued to it from time to time by the Central Government for the efficient decision of the said Act.
In fact vide decision dated 17th October, 1985 Government of India imposed a ban on construction of the multi-storeyed buildings in New Delhi till the Master Tlan for 2001 was finalised. This decision was in the shape of a direction which could be issued by the Government of India under Section 41(1) of the Delhi Development Act and was binding on the Authority.
The NDMC had not yet approved the building plans of the petitioner when Government of India imposed ban on the construction of multi — storeyed buildings vide its decision dated 17th October, 1985. Secondly, under Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act read with Building Bye-laws, No Objection Certificate from the Delhi Development Authority regarding the land use as per Master Plan/Zonal Plan is required to be submitted by the petitioner. Under Section 41(1) of the Delhi Development Act, the Delhi Development Authority was bound to carry out any direction issued to it by the Central Government. Since vide its decision dated 17th October, 1985 the Central Government imposed a ban on construction of multi-storeyed buildings in New Delhi till the Master Plan for 2001 was finalised, the question of sanctioning the building plans of the petitioner did not arise after the aforesaid decision.
( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Government of India dated 17th October, 1985 (conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 31st January, 1986) wherein it was stated that the Government had decided to stop construction of multi - storeyed buildings in New Delhi till the Master plan for 2001 was finalised. Further the petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Government of India contained in the letter dated 8th February, 1988 addressed to the then Administrator, New Delhi Municipal Committee, New Delhi. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Secretary Delhi Urban Arts Commission, New Delhi, wherein it is stated that the Government of India has reconsidered its earlier decision dated 17th October, 1985 and have now decided that high rise construction in Delhi may 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 Byelaws etc, but which does not permit such high construction in Lutyen s Bungalow Zone. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the plans for construction of multi storeyed residential building over the land of 2, Tilak Marg, New Delhi submitted by the petitioner to New Delhi Municipal Committee (here in after referred to as NDMC ) stood sanctioned and further NDMC and other respondents be directed to deliver the sanctioned plans forthwith.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition briefly stated and that the petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 2, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. One of the main object of the petitioner company is to construct, manage or deal in multi - storeyed buildings both residential and commercial.
( 3 ) FOR the purpose of constructing a multi - storeyed building, the petitioner company vide sale deed dated 2nd March, 1975 purchased property bearing No. 2 Tilak Marg, New Delhi, admeasuring 2,3 acres. At the time of purchase the property consisted of a residential double storeyed house, garrage and servant quarters etc, with a total covered area measuring 1630 square metres.
( 3 ) AFTER the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 20,03,500. 00 with the Land and Development Office being the amount of unearned increase for sale permission, the mutation was allowed by that office in favour of the petitioner on 20th January, 1967. Further the mutitioner was also allowed by NDMC on 6th February, 1976.
( 4 ) IN the meantime the petitioner gave a notice dated 20th November, 1975 to NDMC disclosing its intention to erect a multi - storeyed residential building with seven storeys over the Land of 2, Tilak Marg, New Delhi and the building plans were also submitted along with the said notice. The Chief Architect of the NDMC vide its letter dated. 16th January, 1976 informed the petitioner that its building plan application dated 20th November, 1975 had been rejected under section 193 (2) of the Punjab Municipal Act. 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the PM Act ).
( 5 ) IN reply to the petitioner s letter dated 28th October, 1976, the Chief Architect, NDMC vide his letter dated 28th October, 1976 informed the petitioner to obtain prior clearance in respect of the scheme from the following Authorities/departments:-
1. Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976. 2. The Design Group, Ministry of Works and Housing, Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi. 3. Urban Arts Commission, Vigyan Bhawwan Annexe, New Delhi. 4. The Land and Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
( 6 ) THE Ministry of Works and Housing by letter dated 3rd November. 1976 informed the petitioner that it was not possible to issue no Objection Certificate to their re-development scheme on the aforesaid plot as the matter regarding the proposed re-development of the scheme of the area
M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
REFERRED TO : Hasan Jurani Malak v. S.M. Ismail, Assistant Charity Commissioner
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.