N.D.M.C. & Ors vs M/S. Tanvi Trading & Credit ...

3. The relevant facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:

4. As far as Lutyens' Bungalow Zone ("the LBZ" for short) is concerned, it was noticed that the LBZ was dominated by 4 green areas bungalows and therefore, in order to maintain the said character, it was necessary to have separate set of norms for the said zone area. The separate set of norms prescribed for the LBZ in Guidelines dated 8.2.1988 were as under:

"Lutyens' Bungalow Zone: In order to maintain the present character of Lutyens' Delhi, which is still dominated by green areas bungalow, there should be a separate set of norms for this zone area. This area has been clearly demarcated. It will consist of the entire Lutyens' Delhi excluding the area between Baba Kharag Singh Marg on the South, Punchkuin Road on the North and the ridge on the west (ii) the area between Baba Kharag Sing Marg, Ashok Road, Ferozshah Road, Barakhamba Road and the Connaught Place, (iii) Mandi House and (iv) the institutional area where the Supreme Court is situated. It will, however, include the areas presently out of Lutyens' Delhi which consist of (I) Nehru Park, (ii) Yashwant Palace (iii) the area between Yashwant Palace and the railway line on the South/and (iv) the area lying between Nehru Park - Yashwant Palace on the West and the boundary of Lutyens' Delhi on the Western edge of Safdar Jung Aerodrome and the Race Course.

5. The Respondent Nos.1 to 9 purchased plot No.47, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi by a registered sale deed on October 28, 1994, in execution application which was filed pursuant to a decree passed in Suit No.307 of 1993. The said plot was mutated in the name of Respondent Nos.1 to 9 on March 22, 1999. On 20.4.1998, the respondents approached the New Delhi Municipal Council ( "the NDMC" for short) to sanction the building plans for construction of two and a half storey building having 15 dwelling units. The NDMC rejected the plans by an order dated 17.6.1998 on several grounds including the ground that the plans were in breach of the LBZ guidelines. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal under Section 254 of the NDMC Act, 1994, before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, New Delhi. The Appellate Tribunal by order dated 23.9.1999 remanded the case to the NDMC holding that the guidelines issued in the year 1988 were interim in nature. The respondents were of the opinion that the matter should not have been remanded to the NDMC and, therefore, challenged the order of remand by filing an appeal under Section 256 of NDMC Act, 1994 before the Lieutenant 8 Governor of New Delhi. The Lieutenant Governor, New Delhi rejected the appeal filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 9 and by an order dated 1.12.1999 upheld the order of remand of the case to the Chairman, NDMC by observing that as per the clear guidelines of the Ministry of Urban Development dated February 8, 1988, the building plans of the respondents could not have been sanctioned. Though pursuant to remand order, the respondents appeared before the Chairperson NDMC, they did not resubmit the building plans as required by the remand order and preferred Writ Petition NO.4145 of 2000 before the High Court of Delhi from which the present appeals arise. During the pendency of the petitions, the High Court by its order dated July 31, 2000 directed the Chairman, NDMC to consider the question of grant of sanction of the plans originally submitted. The Chairman, NDMC, by his order dated November 13, 2000, rejected the building plans submitted by Respondent Nos.1 to 9 by holding that guidelines issued in the years 1988, 1995, 1996 and 1997 were not complied with. It was held by the Chairman that the guidelines issued in the year 1988 were not interim in the 9 nature as observed by the Appellate Tribunal but were final and mandatory. The respondents filed an application in pending petition stating that the matter was also considered by the Ministry of Urban Development and, therefore, the High Court by order dated March 21, 2003 issued notice to the Ministry of Urban Development, which was not originally a party to the writ petition. The Ministry of Urban Development filed its affidavit before the High Court stating that the idea behind the maintenance of LBZ was to have a low density of development and that the 1988 guidelines were in operation. It was further pointed out that vide letter date May 1, 2003 the Ministry had referred the matter to the Prime Minister's Office for relaxation of LBZ guidelines but PMO had informed the Ministry that the relaxation of LBZ guidelines for construction of building had not been approved. The High Court after considering the materials placed before it has rendered the impugned judgment giving rise to the above numbered appeals.

(3) The Chairperson shall communicate the sanction to the person who has given the notice; and where he refuses on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) or under section 245 he shall record a brief statement of his reasons for such refusal and the Chairperson shall communicate the refusal along with the reasons therefor to the person who has given the notice.

11. It is well settled that the law for approval of the building plan would be the date on which the approval is 2 granted and not the date on which the plans are submitted. This is so in view of paragraph 24 of the decision of this Court in Usman Gani J. Khatri of Bombay vs. Cantonment Board and others etc. etc. (1992) 3 SCC 455. It would not be out of place to mention that on February 7, 2007, the Master Plan 2021 has been approved in which the LBZ guidelines have been incorporated and since plan submitted by the respondents were not approved up to the date of coming into force of Master Plan of 2021, the LBZ guidelines will apply with full force to the plan submitted by the respondents and the plan which is contrary to the LBZ guidelines could not have been directed to be sanctioned.

16. For the foregoing reasons the appeals succeed. The impugned judgment is set aside. It is clarified that the 3 respondents would be entitled to submit their plans for development of the plot in accordance with LBZ guidelines dated 8.2.1988 and 9.5.1997. In the event of respondents submitting such building plans in accordance with guidelines as indicated above, the appropriate authority shall pass orders within two months with notice to the respondents.

17. There shall no order as to costs.