RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 06.11.2008 of the learned Single Judge in CM No.11628/2007 in W.P.(C) No.355/1974. Vide the said order, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant NDMC to examine whether the respondents/owners have complied with the conditions imposed on them from time to time and if so, to revalidate and release sanctioned building plans, with FAR of 400.

2. The matter concerns the sanction of plans for construction on plot of land admeasuring 1.192 acres bearing No.14, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

3. At the outset, it may be stated that prior to February 1974 the FAR available for construction on the said plot of land was 400. In February, 1974, the FAR was reduced to 250 and with effect from 01.08.1990 to 150.

4. The matter has a chequered history and it is best to deal with the facts in a systematic tabular fashion.

5. The aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) No.355/1974 was disposed of vide judgment dated 24.03.2005 observing/finding/holding:

Sl. No. Date Particulars

01. 06.12.1969 Building plans for sanction were submitted to the NDMC but rejected for want of permission from the Central Government.

02. 1970 The building plans were re-submitted for sanction.

03. 23.02.1970 NDMC vide Resolution No.79/16 approved the plans (with FAR of 400) subject to compliance of certain conditions.

04. 13.03.1970 Such conditional sanction was communicated to the respondents / owners and they were advised to submit revised plans incorporating the changes suggested and where after certain cost to be paid would be computed.

05. 1970 The respondents / owners treated the letter aforesaid as sanction and commenced construction and got the electricity load sanctioned.

06. 26.06.1970 NDMC rejected the plans for non compliance of the conditions contained in the letter dated 13.03.1970.

07. 29.06.1970 Rejection is communicated to the respondents / owners.

08. 08.07.1970 Respondents / owners contended that the conditions had been complied with and represented for release of the sanctioned plans.

09. 23.07.1971 The NDMC again approves the building plans (with FAR of 400 because of earlier conditional sanction) subject to certain conditions and giving of undertakings by the respondents.

10. 31.07.1971 Such conditional sanction was communicated to the respondents/ owners. However sanctioned plans still not released

11 1971 The construction on the plot of land continues.

12 28.06.1973 The respondents/owners applied for revalidation of the plans, since validity of

earlier conditional sanction was for two years only.

13 19.12.1973 NDMC informs the respondents/owners that since the sanction was conditional and the plans had not been released, the building activity commenced without the sanctioned plans being released, was unauthorized and illegal and at the sole risk and cost of the respondents.

14 1973-74 The construction continues.

15 1974 Respondents/owners filed W.P.(C) No.355/1974 (from which this appeal arises) impugning the stand of the NDMC that the construction already undertaken was illegal.

(i) that the sanction on 23.07.1971 was subject to five corrections to be carried out by the respondents/owners and four undertakings to be furnished by the respondents; till the five corrections were carried out, there could be no sanction; the sanction was thus conditional and for which reason the building plans bearing the endorsement of sanction were not released;

(ii) that though vide interim order dated 14th May, 1974 in the writ petition the respondents/owners were permitted to continue with the construction but the construction was not completed even within two years therefrom i.e. the period of validity of sanctioned plans;

(iii) sanction, even of 23rd July, 1971 being conditional, till the conditions were fulfilled, there was no sanction and/or the sanction was inoperative; it is the endorsement on the pl