- (1.) LEAVE granted in both the special leave petitions.
(2.) THESE appeals are directed against common judgment dated May 19, 2004 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C. W. P. No. 4154 of 2000, whereby it is held that the order rejecting building plans submitted by the respondents is illegal as well as without jurisdiction and declared that the building plans submitted by the respondents, are deemed to have been sanctioned under section 241 (2) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (for short "ndnc Act" ). Further, the New Delhi Municipal council is directed to return the building plans submitted by the respondents with an endorsement "sanctioned" within the time specified in the order. The relevant facts emerging from the record of the case are as under: The disputed plot was leased to one Shri R. B. L. Teerath Ram on March 9, 1923. The plot was thereafter mutated in the name of M. Rai and Sons on September 2, 1958. A portion of the plot, which was lying vacant, admeasuring 5000 sq. yards was carved out and numbered as plot No. 47. It was mutated in the name of Sardar Harcharan singh Duggal on March 4, 1976. The opening of the carved out plot was on Amrita Shergil Marg, South Delhi. The ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, had imposed temporary ban on construction of multi-storeyed buildings in New Delhi including areas under the Delhi development Area and Delhi Municipal Council falling in south Delhi, with effect from 17. 10. 1985, till the Master Plan for Delhi - 2001 was finalized. This ban was partially lifted in respect of Connaught Place area, subject to certain conditions. Pending finalization of the Master Plan for Delhi 2001, it was decided that revised comprehensive guidelines with regard to multi-storeyed buildings in Delhi should be prepared. Accordingly, guidelines were prepared on 8. 2. 1988 and it was decided that high rise constructions in Delhi should continue to be regulated subject to compliance with conditions of detailed urban design clearance, fire fighting requirement and requirements under other provisions like the Master Plan, zoning Regulations, Building Bye-Laws etc. As far as Lutyens' Bungalow Zone ("the LBZ" for short)is concerned, it was noticed that the LBZ was dominated by 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. There were the following norms for construction in the Lutyens' Bungalow Zone. (i) The new construction of dwelling on a plot must have the same plinth area as the existing bungalow and must have a height not exceeding the height of the bungalow in place, or if the plot is vacant, the height of the bungalow which is the lowest of those on the adjoining plots. (ii) In the commercial areas, such as Khan market, Yashwant Palace etc. , and in institutional areas within the Lutyens' bungalow Zone, the norms will be the same as those for these respective areas outside the zone. (iii) The existing regulations for the Central Vista will continue to be applicable. (iv) The demarcation line of the Lutyens' Zone should not run along prominent roads because, if it does so, there will be bungalows on the side of the road and the high rise buildings on the other side. It has, therefore been decided that the demarcation of the lutyens Bungalow Zone should run along the first inner/outer road or land from the prominent road through which the demarcation line is shown in the map. However, the demarcation can run through the prominent road where there is park, ridge or green area on the other side of the road. (c) As already stated, the maximum per floor coverage of 25% should include the area required for all service except passage to the building. Thus the facility must be included in the 25% and it must be underground. In case of new buildings that come up in the Centre business Districts (Cannaught Place) Business districts. The remaining 75% must included only the passage to the buildings and the green area around. (d) The FAR for the six area listed below will be as indicated against each:- JUDGEMENT_1382_TLPRE0_2008Html1.htm There will not be a separate Governmental Category for FAR specifications. The norms for Government construction will be governed by the norms specified for the zone where the Government building is to be constructed. " On August 1, 1990, the Master Plan 2001 was approved wherein it was specifically mentioned that the bungalow character of LBZ needs to be preserved. The Master Plan even without specifically mentioning LBZ guidelines visualized similar treatment of the LBZ so as to maintain the low density area without in any manner adversely affecting the green cover in the area. On July 27, 1993 objections were invited to the Zonal Development Plan whereas on May 25, 1994 the new Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 came into force.
(3.) 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 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 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. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the documents forming part of the two appeals. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondents that lbz guidelines dated February 8, 1988 have no legal basis or statutory foundation and, therefore, the High Court was justified in giving the impugned directions, cannot be accepted.;