The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the Corporation) is aggrieved by an order dated 23rd October, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 7697/2000. According to the Corporation, the learned Single Judge erred in directing release of the building plans of the Respondent even though they were not in conformity with the building bye-laws. We agree with the Corporation that the building plans were sanctioned conditionally and the crucial date when the building plans were considered, the building bye-laws relied upon were not operative. Therefore, the Corporation had no option but to reject the building plans submitted by the Respondent.

2. At the outset, we may state that the view canvassed by the Corporation in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge is quite different from the view placed before the learned Single Judge in the review petition and also before us. We have proceeded on the basis of the view canvassed before the learned Single Judge in the review petition and also before us.

The facts:

3. The Respondent is the owner of a plot measuring 1.029 hectares in village Rajokari, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The building bye-laws applicable to the area were published by a notification dated 23rd June, 1983. The Master Plan for Delhi was later amended by a notification dated 23rd July, 1998 by virtue of which the maximum coverage and height of dwelling units for farm houses such as that of the Respondent was increased. However, and this is important, the building bye-laws were not correspondingly changed or modified in respect of farm houses, which is what we are concerned with. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted, in the alternative, that the legal position remains the same even if the building bye-laws were modified or deemed to have been modified.

4. In order to take advantage of the increase offered, the Respondent submitted an application to the Corporation on or about 17th April, 2000 for constructing a dwelling unit on its plot as per the norms laid down in the Master Plan for Delhi (as amended on 23rd July, 1998). The application contained all the requisite information and documents and was duly processed by the Corporation. According to the Respondent, the site was inspected, the title of the Respondent was verified and thereafter the building plans were sanctioned on 23rd May, 2000. The sanction required the Respondent to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the Land Acquisition Department and deposit the levy on account of a change in the floor area ratio.

5. It will be noticed from the above that the “sanction” of the building plans on 23rd May, 2000 was conditional on the Respondent obtaining a No Objection Certificate as well as depositing the necessary charges.

6. A No Objection Certificate was applied for by the Respondent and it was issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) on 19th June, 2000 and on the same day the Respondent says that he deposited the levy. The notifications and cause of action:

7. On 7th June, 2000 the Ministry of Urban Development of the Government of India published two notifications being S.O. 557(E) and S.O. 558(E). These notifications were issued before the No Objection Certificate was obtained by the Respondent on 19th June, 2000 but after the conditional sanction of building plans on 23rd May, 2000.

8. In the first notification being S.O. 557(E) dated 7th June, 2000 the Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Division) stated that the building bye-laws stand modified to the extent mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the annexure to the notification dated 23rd July, 1998. What we are concerned with is paragraph 4 of the annexure to the notification dated 23rd July, 1998. This paragraph concerns itself with the size, ground coverage, floor area ratio, height etc. of a farm house. Significantly, the building bye-laws were not modified to incorporate paragraph 4 of the annexure to the notification dat