NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. INDER NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment would dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 141 and 158 of 1970 which have been filed by New Delhi Municipal Committee and Delhi Development Authority respectively, and are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge granting some reliefs in a writ petition in favour of Inder Narain and four other respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents.) Respondents I to 3 are the lessees of an area of land measuring about 7.070 square yards, situate at 23, Curzon Road, New Delhi. The said respondents carry on business in partnership under the name and style of Lokenath Ramsarandas respondent No. 4. They also formed a partnership in 1967 under the name and style of Lokenath & Co. (Construction) respondent No. 5 for the purpose of constructing a multi-storeyed building on the above-mentioned land and for disposing of blocks therein on ownership basis. As 23, Curzon Road, is within the jurisdiction of New Delhi Municipal Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant Committee"), application dated November 25, 1966 for sanction of the Building plan was submitted by the respondents to the appellant Committee. The appellant Committee sanctioned the plan as 'per resolution dated March 24,1967 and conveyed it to the respondents as per letter dated April, 15, 1967. New. Delhi Municipal Committee, it may be stated, is governed by the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 as extended to Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Municipal Act"). 23, Curzon Road, is also included in Section 2 and 3 of Zonal Development Plan for Zone D-l (Connaught Place and its extension) under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Development Act"). Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ''the Authority") has been constituted under section 3 of the aforesaid Act. According to the respondents, the construction of a thirteen-storeyed building, known as Himalaya House, at 23. Curzon Road, started in July, 1967 and was finished by July 25, 1969 by which time only certain finishing touches remained to be given. Section 194 of the Municipal Act provides that the sanction of the plan is valid for two years from the date of the sanction if the construction had started within one year from the date of the sanction. The validity of the sanction for the building plan of the respondents expired on March 24, 1969, The respondents submitted revised plans for the building on March 9, 1970. The revised plans were put up for consideration before the Plans Sub-Committee of the appellant Committee on March 21, 1970. The said Sub-Committee then made the following recommendation to the appellant Committee:

(2.) The appellant Committee approved the above Minutes of the meeting of the Plans; Sub-Committee on April 3, 1970. It may be stated that there was contravention of the plan initially sanctioned as well as of the Master and Zonal Plans by the respondents in the construction of the 2nd floor of the building inasmuch the respondents covered 50% of the floor area as against the permissible limit of 35%.

(3.) When the respondents came to know of the resolution passed by the appellant Committee on April 3, 1970 they made a representation against the imposition of heavy penalty and also prayed for the grant of an occupation certificate. The Plans Sub-Committee of the appellant Committee held a meeting on April 7, 1970 and considered the representation of the respondents. The Plans Sub-Committee then recommended as under :-