The court considered multiple factors and principles to reach its findings, including:

1. Legal Authority and Jurisdiction: The court examined whether the authorities issuing the notices had the proper legal power and authority under the lease agreement, relevant statutes, and constitutional provisions. It analyzed whether the officers acted within their constitutional and statutory powers or exceeded them, especially in relation to the powers of the Lt. Governor and the Land & Development Officer (!) (!) .

2. Validity of Permissions and Sanctions: The court evaluated whether the permission granted by the relevant authorities for construction, including the construction with an increased FAR and additional basements, was valid, proper, and in accordance with the applicable master plans, development plans, and bye-laws. It considered whether the approvals were given by authorized persons and whether they conformed to statutory requirements (!) (!) (!) .

3. Compliance with Statutory and Planning Regulations: The court scrutinized whether the construction and land use complied with the provisions of the relevant development laws, master plans, zonal development plans, and building bye-laws. It assessed whether the construction adhered to permissible FAR, coverage, height restrictions, and other planning norms (!) (!) (!) .

4. Legal Effect of Permissions and Sanctions: The court examined whether the permissions granted, especially those by the Ministry of Works & Housing and the Delhi Development Authority, had an overriding legal effect, and whether subsequent actions to revoke or question these permissions were lawful or amounted to abuse of power (!) (!) .

5. Mala Fide and Political Motivation: The court considered whether the impugned notices and actions were motivated by mala fide intentions, political vendettas, or extraneous considerations, especially in light of the timing, sequence of events, and the conduct of authorities after assuming office. It looked into whether the actions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or based on improper motives (!) (!) (!) .

6. Procedural Fairness and Due Process: The court evaluated whether the notices were issued following proper procedures, including whether the authorities applied their mind, followed statutory procedures, and whether the notices were issued based on genuine and relevant grounds or were merely exploratory or preliminary steps (!) (!) .

7. Constitutional Rights and Freedoms: The court analyzed the impact of the impugned notices on fundamental rights, particularly the rights to freedom of speech, expression, and the press, and whether the actions threatened to infringe upon these rights unlawfully or excessively. It considered whether the notices were a means to suppress or control the press, which would be unconstitutional (!) (!) .

8. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel and Reliance: The court took into account whether the parties had acted upon prior assurances, permissions, or sanctions, and whether the government was estopped from revoking or challenging such permissions due to their reliance and construction undertaken in good faith (!) (!) (!) .

9. Effect of Statutory Provisions and Hierarchy of Laws: The court considered the hierarchy of laws, including the overriding effect of the relevant development and municipal laws, and whether the actions of authorities were in conformity with or contrary to these laws. It also examined whether the statutory procedures for enforcement, such as re-entry or demolition, were properly followed (!) (!) (!) .

10. Constitutional and Administrative Hierarchy: The court reviewed the constitutional position of the authorities involved, including the powers of the Union of India, the President, the Lieutenant-Governor, and the local bodies, and whether the authorities acted within their constitutional and statutory limits or usurped powers unlawfully (!) (!) (!) .

11. Motive and Good Faith of Administrative Actions: The court scrutinized whether the actions were taken in good faith or driven by improper motives, malice, or political considerations, and whether there was any abuse of power or misuse of statutory authority (!) (!) (!) .

12. Evidence and Record Examination: The court considered the documentary evidence, official records, approvals, correspondence, and affidavits to determine the factual accuracy of claims regarding permissions, approvals, and compliance with laws (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, the court's decision was based on a comprehensive review of the legal authority, procedural correctness, compliance with planning laws, constitutional rights, and the motives behind the actions, emphasizing whether the authorities acted within their lawful powers and in good faith or whether their actions were arbitrary, mala fide, or politically motivated.