Delhi High Court
Ravindra Properties Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 30 April, 1992
Equivalent citations: 47(1992)DLT538, 1992(23)DRJ270
JUDGMENT Sat Pal, J.
(1) In this petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Government of India dated 17th October, 1985 (conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 31st January, 1986) wherein it was stated that the Government had decided to stop construction of multi - storeyed buildings in New Delhi till the Master plan for 2001 was finalised. Further the petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Government of India contained in the letter dated 8th February, 1988 addressed to the then Administrator, New Delhi Municipal Committee, New Delhi. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Secretary Delhi Urban Arts Commission, New Delhi, wherein it is stated that the Government of India has reconsidered its earlier decision dated 17th October, 1985 and have now decided that high rise construction in Delhi may 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 Byelaws etc, but which does not permit such high construction in Lutyen's Bungalow Zone. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the plans for construction of multi storeyed residential building over the land of 2, Tilak Marg, New Delhi submitted by the petitioner to New Delhi Municipal Committee (here in after referred to as Ndmc ) stood sanctioned and further Ndmc and other respondents be directed to deliver the sanctioned plans forthwith.
(2) The facts giving rise to the present writ petition briefly stated and that the petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 2, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. One of the main object of the petitioner company is to construct, manage or deal in multi - storeyed buildings both residential and commercial.
(3) For the purpose of constructing a multi - storeyed building, the petitioner company vide sale deed dated 2nd March, 1975 purchased property bearing No.2 Tilak Marg, New Delhi, admeasuring 2,3 acres. At the time of purchase the property consisted of a residential double storeyed house, garage and servant quarters etc, with a total covered area measuring 1630 square metres.
(3) After the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.20,03,500.00 with the Land & Development Office being the amount of unearned increase for sale permission, the mutation was allowed by that office in favor of the petitioner on 20th January, 1967. Further the petitioner was also allowed by Ndmc on 6th February, 1976.
(4) In the meantime the petitioner gave a notice dated 20th November, 1975 to Ndmc disclosing its intention to erect a multi - storeyed residential building with seven storeys over the Land of 2, Tilak Marg, New Delhi and the building plans were also submitted along with the said notice. The Chief Architect of the Ndmc vide its letter dated .16th January, 1976 informed the petitioner that its building plan application dated 20th November, 1975 had been rejected under section 193 (2) of the Punjab Municipal Act. 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Pm Act).
(5) In reply to the petitioner's letter dated 28th October, 1976, the Chief Architect, Ndmc vide his letter dated 28th October, 1976 informed the petitioner to obtain prior clearance in respect of the scheme from the following Authorities/Departments:- 1.Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation ) Act, 1976. 2. The Design Group, Ministry of Works & Housing, Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi. 3. Urban Arts Commission, Vigyan Bhawwan Annexe, New Delhi. 4. The Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
(6) The Ministry of Works & Housing by letter dated 3rd' November. 1976 informed the petitioner that it was not possible to issue 'No Objection Certificate' to their re-development scheme on the aforesaid plot as the matter regarding the proposed re-development of the scheme of the area was under consideration of the Government. It was, however, certified that the said plot was within the area earmarked for group housing in the re-development proposals. The Delhi Development Authority by their letter date 22nd May, 1979 informed the petitioner that the plot in question was earmarked for group housing as per erstwhile New Delhi Re-development Advisory Committee's recommendation. the permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act was granted by the Delhi Administration in favor of the petitioner in respect of the above menti oned plot subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned in their sanction letter.
(7) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted two sets of drawings, duly corrected and amended, to the Chief Architect Ndmc along with its letter dated 8th March, 1985. The Delhi Urban Arts Commission (for short called DUAC)vide its letter dated 9th/ 17th September, 1985 addressed to the Chief Architect, Ndmc informed that the architect of the petitioner has now submitted the modified drawings which have been found satisfactory and one set of the approved drawing was sent to the Ndmc along with this letter for necessary action as to whether the same was in accordance with the Bye-laws, Master .Plan, Zonal Plan and fire fighting regulations.
(8) The Chief Fire Officer, New Delhi addressed a letter dated 18th July, 1985 to the petitioner forwarding therewith a copy of fire safety recommendations made by the fire advisor (DDA) along with a copy of the plan duly approved and directed the petitioner to comply with fire safety recommendations/requirements made by the said committee under intimation to his office. The Executive Engineer (Electrical Planning) by his letter dated 5th August, 1985 approved the plans submitted by the petitioner subject to certain conditions mentioned in that letter.
(9) The Land & Development Office by their letter dated 26th May, 1984 informed the petitioner that the Lesser was willing to consider their request seeking permission for construction of multi - storeyed building on the plot in question if they were willing to comply with the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter. The main condition mentioned in this letter was the payment of additional premium in lump - sum amounting to Rs. l,03,50,118.00 . It has been stated in the petition that in pursuance of the demand raised by the Land & Development Office, the said amount of Rs.1,03,50,118.00 was paid by the petitioner on 28th August, 1986.
(10) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted to the Chief Architect, Ndmc list of drawings, No Objection Certificate from Land & Development Office, No objection Certificate from the Chief Fire Officer, New Delhi and No objection Certificate from Electricity Department of NDMC", New Delhi, along with their letter dated 10th Sep- tember, 1985 and requested the Chief Architect for issuing the sanction for construction of the multistoreyed building at the plot in question.
(11) Meanwhile, the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development by their office memorandum dated 17th October, 1985 informed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Development Authority and the Chairman , Urban Arts Commission that the Government of India has decided to stop construction of multistoreyed buildings in New Delhi with immediate effect till he Master Plan for 2001 has been finalised. The said decision of the Government was communicated to the petitioner by the Ministry of Urban Development vide letter dated 31st January, 1986. The aforesaid decision of the Government of India dated 17th October, 1985 conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 31st January, 1986, was challenged in the present writ petition.
(12) During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner vide their letter dated 27th August , 1987 submitted a- set of plans after making some corrections and the plans were examined, thereafter the decision of the Administrator was as under:- After having examined and studied:- A)the set of building plans submitted by the party/petitioners vide their letter dated 27.8.87; b) the various clearance (s) received/obtained from Dda, CFO.ULCR and L&DO etc, in this case; c) petitioner's affidavit and objections dated 16.7.87 to Ndmc report dated 8.5.87;
(13) Bpc resolved and Administrator decided that although the party has now by and large made the necessary corrections in the plans as intimated to the court vide our report dated 8.5.87 filed by Ndmc in the High Court of Delhi and the corrections having been found of such a nature which does not call for any fresh approval reference from/to Dda, Duac, Ulcr & L&DO as applicable . in this case; but the plans for the proposed group housing in the form complex measuring about 80 ft, in height, which already stand rejected under section 193 (2) of P.M. Act vide Reso. No.1l dated 21.11.84, be not approved in view of the Ban order dated 17.10.85 of the Ministry of Urban Development, Government-of India and which is still in force in the area/zone where the said premises, known as 2, Tilak Marg,Ncw Delhi is situated.
(13) Further decided by the BPA/Administrator that this decision of the Bpc be communicated to the law Deptt. for taking further necessary action in the matter with respect to the hearing in the High Court of Delhi on 8.9.87 in anticipation of its confirmation by the Committee."
(14) During the pendency of the writ petition the Government of India addressed letter dated 8th February, 1988 to the Commissioner, Mcd, the Adminstrator. Ndmc, the Vice - Chairman Dda and the Chairman Duac wherein it was stated that it has been decided to modify the earlier decision contained in the letter dated 17th October, 1985 and the Government of India has now decided that high rise construction in Delhi may continue to be requited 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. subject to some further modifications. It was, however, stated there in that the aforesaid changed decision shall not apply to Lutyen's Bungalow Zone and the new construction of dwellings on a plot in Lutyen Zone must have the same plinth area as the existing bungalow and must have 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.
(15) The writ petition came up for hearing on 2nd January, 1989. During the course of hearing, Mr.Rattan Lal, learned counsel for the Union of India stated that the ban had been lifted by the Central Government vide notification dated 8th February, 1988 in respect of area in which the property No.2,Tilak Marg, New Delhi was situated. In this view of the aforesaid statement given on 2nd January. 1989 by the learned counsel for the Union of India, the writ petition was allowed and Ndmc was directed to issue the sanction order in respect of the building plans already examined and scrutinised within two weeks from the date of the judgment.
(16) Later on it came to the notice of the Ndmc that the property of the petitioner is situated in the Lutyen's Bungalow Zone and in terms of the guidelines contained in the letter dated 8th February, 1988 the ban was not lifted in respect of area which falls under Lutyen Bangalow Zone. The Ndmc, therefore, filed an application being Cmp 385/89 wherein a prayer was made to this Court for recalling order dated 2nd January, 1989 by which the writ petition was disposed of. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court vide order dated 9th March, 1989 recalled its earlier order dated 2nd January, 1989 and restored the writ petition for hearing on merits. This is how the writ petition has come up again for hearing.
(17) Mr. Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged the following contentions before us:- 1.The respondents are stopped from resiling from their promises/representation that the land-in question would be used for group housing purpose. 2. The decision of the Government of India dated 17th October, 1985 (which was issued pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble the Prime Minister contained in the letter dated 18th September, 1985, Annexure-R3) restraining Ndmc from discharging its statutory duty of sanctioning the plans of multi - storeyed buildings under the provisions of Pm Act, 1911, is invalid and not enforceable. The said decision being administrative in nature cannot override the provisions of the said Act. 3. The aforesaid decision of the Government of India dated 17th 0ctober,1985 modified the then Master Plan issued under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act,, 1957 and as such was illegal as the procedure prescribed for such modification under section Ii -A of the said Act has not been followed in the present case. 4. Even assuming the aforesaid decision of the Government of India dated 17th October, 1985 is legal, the directions contained in this decision are not reasonable as there was no material whatsoever before the Government of India to justify such a decision. 5. The refusal by Ndmc to grant sanction in view of the modification of the Master Plan was applicable at the relevant time, did not contain any ban on construction of multi - storeyed buildings in the area in question. 6. Sanction of plans submitted by the petitioner cannot be refused by Ndmc on account of ban of multi - storeyed buildings in the Lutyen Bungalow Zone.
(18) Before examining the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be relevant to notice a few provisions of Pm act, 1911, the Building Bye-laws and the Delhi Development Act, 1957 which are as under:- Punjab Municipal Act, 1911:- 189(1) No person shall erect or re-erect or commence to erect or re-erect any building without the sanction of the committee. (2) Every person who intends to erect or re-erect any building shall give notice in writing to the committee of such intention. (3) A committee shall by bye-law- (a) prescribe the manner in which notice of the intention to erect or re-erect a building shall be given to the committee; (b) require that with every such notice shall be furnished a site plan of the land on which it is intended to erect or re-erect such building and a plan and specification of the building, of such character and with such details as the bye-law may require; (c) where the building appears likely to be used as a factory, require the provision of adequate housing accommodation in connection therewith. (4) Where Bye-laws have been framed under this section no notice under sub-section (2) shall be considered to be valid until the information, if any, required by such Bye-laws has been furnished to the satisfaction of committee. 190(1):- The committee may, and if so required by the State Government shall, by Bye-laws, regulate in respect of the erection or re-erection of any "building within the municipality or part thereof- (a) the materials and method ot. construction to be used for external and party walls, roofs, floors, staircases, lifts, fire-places and chimneys; (b) the materials and method of construction and position of fire places, chimneys, drains, latrines, prives, urinals and cess-pools; (c) the height and slope of the roof above the upper most floor upon which human beings are to live or cooking operations are to be carried on; (d) the ventilation and the space to be left about the buildings to secure the free circulation of air and for the prevention of fire; (e) the line of frontage where the building abuts on a street; (f) the number and height of the storeys of which the buildings may consist; (g) the means to be provided for egress from the building in case of fire; (h) the materials and method of construction to be used for godowns intended for the storage of food-grains in excess of fifty maunds, in order to render them rat-proof; (i) the minimum dimensions of rooms intended for use as living rooms or sleeping rooms; (j) the ventilation of room and the minimum dimensions of doors (and) windows; (k) the position and dimensions of projections beyond the outer face of any external wall of a building; and (1) the height of factory chimneys and the provision to be made for consumption of smoke arising from the combustible used in any fire-place or furnace in a factory. 190(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 193, no person shall erect or re-erect any building in contravention of any bye-law made under sub-section (1). Building Bye-laws:- 6.1 Notice - Every person who intends to erect, re-erect or make alternations in any place in a building or demolish any building shall give notice in writing to the Authority of his said intention in the prescribed form and such notice shall be accompanied by plans and statements in sufficient copies, as required under 6.2 and 6.3. The plans may be ordinary prints on ferro paper or any other type. One of them shall be cloth mounted. One set of such plans' shall be released and the rest retained in the office of the Authority for record after the issue of permit or a refusal. 6.2 Information Accompanying Notice. The notice shall be accompanied by the site plan, building plans, services plans, specifications and certificate of supervision and ownership title and other documents as prescribed by the Authority and clause 6.2.1 to 6.2.6. 6.2.9. Documents. Application for building permit shall be accompanied by the following documents;- (a) ownership documents. Lease deed, sale-deed etc. duly accompanied by an annexed site plan giving the physical description of the plot/property. In such cases where lease-deed has not been executed, no objection certificate from the Competent Authority shall be submitted. (b) Document under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976. (c) Undertaking for non-stacking of building material on public property/road in case of plot measuring more than 418 sq. mtr. in area to be submitted in the proforma as given in Appendix 'M' (d) In case of any deviation from the terms and conditions stipulated in the lease-deed /ownership document, necessary clearance from the Competent Authority; (e) No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority regarding land use as per Master/Zonal Plan, if required. (f) Approval from the Chief Inspector of Factories in case of Industrial Buildings. (g) Approval from Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur and Chief Fire Officer, Delhi, in case of hazardous buildings. (h) Indemnity Bond in case of proposal for the construction of a basement as given in Appendix 'N'. 6.7.4 If within 60 days of the receipt of notice under 6.1 of the Bye-laws, the authority fails to intimate in writing to the person who has given the notice, of its refusal or sanction or any intimation, the notice with its plans and statements shall be deemed to have been sanctioned provided the fact is immediately brought to the notice to the authority in writing by the person who has given notice and having not received any intimation from the Authority within fifteen days of giving such written notice. Subject to the conditions mentioned in this Bye-laws, nothing shall be construed to authorise any person to do any thing in contravention or against the terms of lease or titles of the land or against any other regulations, Bye- laws or ordinance operating on the site of the work. 6.7.5 Once the plan has been scrutinised and objections have been pointed out, the owner giving notice shall modify the plan to comply with the objections raised and resubmit it. The Authority shall scrutinise the re-submitted plan and if there be further objections, the same shall be intimated to the applicant for compliance after which plans shall be sanctioned. 6.8 The sanction once accorded through building permit, shall remain valid for two years from the date of sanction, for the residential, industrial and commercial buildings (4-storeyed) and shall remain valid for three years from the date of sanction for larger complexes and multi-storeyed buildings, and such buildings as classified under clause 2.54.2, 2.54.3 and 2.54.4. The building permit shall be got revalidated before the expiry of this period. Revalidation shall be subject to the Master/Zonal Plan regulations and Building Bye-laws, then in force, for the area. Delhi Development Act. 1957:- S. 9(1) In this section and in sections 10, 11,12 and 14 the word "plan" means the master plan as well as the zonal development plan for a zone. (2) Every plan shall, as soon as may be after its preparation, be submitted by the Authority to the Central Government for approval and that Government may either approve the plan without modifications as it may consider necessary or reject the plan with directions to the Authority to prepare a fresh plan according to such direction. S. 11A(1) The Authority may make any modifications to the master plan or the zonal development plan as it thinks fit, being modifications which, in its opinion, do not effect important alternations in the character of the plan and which do not relate to the extent of land-users or the standards of population density. (2) The Central Government may make any modifications to the master plan or the zonal development plan whether such modifications are of the nature specified in sub-section (1) or otherwise. (3) Before making any modifications to the plan, the Authority or, as the case may be, the Central Government shall publish a notice in such form and manner as may be prescribed by rules made in this behalf inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the proposed modifications before such date as may be specified in the notice and shall consider all objections and suggestions that may be received by the Authority or the Central Government. (4) Every modification made under the provisions of this section shall be published in such manner as the Authority or the Central Government, as the case may be, may specify and the modifications shall come into operation either on the date of the publication or on such other date as the Authority or the Central Government may fix. 12(4) After the coming into operation of any of the plans in any urea no development shall be undertaken or carried out in that area unless such development is also in accordance with such plans. (14) After the coming into operation of any plans in a zone no person shall use or permit to be used any land or building in that zone otherwise than in conformity with such plan: Provided that it shall be lawful to continue to use or on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in this behalf any land or building for the purpose and to the extent for and to which it is being used upon the date on which such plan comes into force. 41(1) The Authority shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the Central Government for the efficient administration of this Act."
(19) It will be seen from above that under section 189(1) of the Pm Act, 1911 no person can erect any building without sanction of NDMC. Under section 190(2) of the said Act no person shall erect any building in contravention of any Bye-laws made under sub-section (1) of section 190. Under section 193, Ndmc has the power to sanction or refuse the sanction the erection of any building in contravention of any said Bye-laws. Under section 189 of the Pm Act read with Bye-laws 6.1, every person who wants to erect any building is required to give notice in writing to the authority of his said intention in the prescribed form which shall be accompanied by plans, statement of documents as required under the Bye-laws. In Bye-laws 6.7.4 if within 60 days of the receipt of notice under 6.1 of the Bye-laws, the authority fails to intimate in writing to the person who has given the notice, of its refusal or sanction or any intimation, the notice with its plans and statements shall be deemed to have been sanctioned provided the fact is immediately brought to the notice of the Authority and a period of fifteen days has lapsed thereafter. Under Bye-laws 6.7.5 once objections have been pointed out. the owner of the plot giving notice shall comply with the objections and re-submit the plan. Accordingly, the Bye-law pertaining to deeming sanction shall not be applied to a case where objections have been pointed out. Under section 193(2) of Pm Act Ndmc is authorised to reject the plan and such decision of the Ndmc is appealable under section 225 of the said Act.
(20) Under section 9 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (in short called the Dd Act) every Master Plan after its approval by the Delhi Development Authority is required to be submitted to the Central Government for approval and that Government may either approve the plan with or without modification or reject the same with directions to the authority to prepare a fresh plan according to such directions. Even after the Master Plan has come into operation, the Central Government /Authority may make any modification in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 11A of the aforesaid Act. Under section 14 of this Act no person shall use any land or building otherwise than in conformity with the Master Plan under section 41 (1) of this Act, the Authority shall carry out each direction as may be issued to it from time to time by the Central Government for the efficient decision of the said Act.
(21) Before examining the various contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we may first deal with the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Bikaramjit Nayyar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. He submitted that the plans submitted by the petitioner were rejected by Ndmc vide its resolution dated 21st November, 1984 (copy of which is Annexure-R1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3) under section 193 (2) of the Pm Act. He further submitted that the aforesaid order under section 193 (2) of the Act was appealable under section 225 but the petitioner failed to avail itself of the right of appeal. Thereafter, no application along with the plans was submitted as required under section 189 of the Pm Act and as such the writ petition being premature was liable to be dismissed on this short ground. We, however, find no merit in the preliminary objection. Annexure-RI to the counter affidavit itself indicated that while rejecting the plans submitted by the petitioner, the Plans Committee of Ndmc gave certain reasons, one of which was that the case stands referred to Delhi Development Authority and Delhi Urban Arts Commission, vide their letter dated 9th November, 1984 and their comments/approval were awaited. Further, reasons indicated were that No Objection Certificates from certain authorities have not been submitted. In fact in reply to letter dated 9th November, 1984 Duac forwarded to the Chief Architect Ndmc the modified drawings submitted by the petitioner which were found satisfactory by the Commission. Even in the impugned letter dated 31st January, 1986 it was stated that it was not possible for the Ndmc to approve the plans of the petitioner in view of the decision taken by the Government of India not to sanction the buildings plans for construction of multi-storeyed buildings in New Delhi and South Delhi till the Master Plan for Delhi 2001 was finalised. All these letters clearly show that the plans submitted by the petitioner were not finally rejected by the Ndmc vide its resolution dated 21st November, 1984.
(22) We shall now proceed to examine the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In support of the first contention the learned counsel submitted that at the time of submission of plans by the petitioner there was no ban on the construction of the multi-storeyed buildings in New Delhi in terms of the Master Plan which was in existence at that time. It was submitted that the Chief Architect Ndmc vide its letter dated 28th October, 1976 had asked the petitioner to obtain prior clearance from various authorities, namely, Competent Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976, Design Group of Ministry of Works & Housing, Urban Arts Commission and Land & Development Office. Pursuant to these requirements the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,03,50,118.00 as additional premium to the L. & D. 0. and thereafter the L. & D. 0. granted the necessary permission for construction of multistoried building on the plot of the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner had obtained the permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 from Delhi Administration, No Objection Certificate from the Chief Fire Officer, New Delhi. After obtaining clearance from all the departments, the petitioner had submitted the list of drawings and copies of No Objection Certificates along with its letter dated 10th September, 1985 and since the petitioner had complied with all the requirements, Ndmc being a statutory body, in exercise of its powers under section 193 of the Pm Act, was bound to approve the plans submitted by the petitioner for construction of multi-storeyed building. He further submitted that even the Government of India decision dated 17th October, 1985 has not come into existence on the date when all the requirements were duly completed by the petitioner. Ndmc having completed its enquiry under the provisions of the Pm Act in September 1985 itself was stopped from declining the sanction to the plans submitted by the petitioner under the doctrine of promisory estoppel. In support of his contention the learned counsel referred to two Supreme Court Judgments reported in Hasan Jurani Malak vs. S.M. Ismail, Assistant Charity Commissioner, and M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, . In reply Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned counsel for respondents No. I and 2 submitted that the doctrine of promisory estoppel does not operate at the level of Government Policy. Besides relying on M. P. Sugar Mils (supra) he also placed reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, which was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. R.K. Deka vs Union of India, 1991 (3) Delhi Lawyer 256. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit as we find that even on facts various No Objection Certificates granted in favor of the petitioner by various authorities were subject to cert in conditions which were yet to be fulfillled by the petitioner. In any case Ndmc in exercise of its power under section 193 of the Pm Act rejected the plans submitted by the petitioner vide its resolution dated 21st November, 1984 (Annexure-R1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 ). In Annexure the reasons stated for rejection, inter alia, indicate that the mattfe. was under correspondence with the Dda and Duac and the plans needed certain corrections. After communications were received by Ndmc from various authorities it was yet to take a final decision under section 193 of the Pm Act when the Government of India took a decision dated 17th October, 1985 banning the construction of multi-storeyed buildings in New Delhi and South Delhi till the Master Plan for 2001 was finalised. In fact pursuant to the order dated 6th April, 1987 passed by this Court the Deputy Architect of the Ndmc in his report dated 30th April, 1987 (which is at page 157-159 of the paper book ) had pointed out seven other reasons/short comings for not approving the building plans of the petitioner besides the reason of ban of construction of multi-storeyed buildings in New Delhi imposed vide Government of India's decision dated 17th October, 1985. All this clearly shows that in fact there was no firm promise to 'attract the doctrine of promisory estoppel.
(23) Besides, we agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondents I and 2 that the doctrine of promisory estoppels does not operate at the level of Government Policy as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspaper (supra).
(24) In support of contention No.2 the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while sanctioning building plans, the Ndmc was bound to Act in accordance with the provisions of Pm Act and building Bye-laws. Since the Government of India's decision dated 17th October, 1985 was not issued in exercise of power under any provision of the Pm Act, the said decision was not binding on the Ndmc and was not enforceable in law. In this connection the learned counsel also placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments in S.Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, and C. S. Rowjee vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Air 1974 Sc 962 and Hasan Nurani Malak vs S. M. Ismail. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, Air 11967 Sc 1742. We, however, find no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel. In fact in terms of the Building Bye-laws applicable to Ndmc read with section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 No Objection Certificate from the Delhi Development Authority regarding land use as per Master Plan/Zonal Plan is required to be submitted by the petitioner. Further under section c of the said Act the Delhi Development Authority is bound to carry out any directions issued by the Central Government. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, the Ndmc could not sanction the building plans of the petitioner after the Government of India took the decision dated 17th October. 1985.
(24) The contention No.3 urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner staling that the Government of India decision dated 17th October, 1985 in fact modified the then Master Plan is misconceived. In fact vide decision dated 17th October, 1985 Government of India imposed a ban on construction of the multi-storeyed buildings in New Delhi till the Master Plan for 2001 was finalised. This decision was in the shape of a direction which could be issued by the Government of India under section 41(1) of the Delhi Development Act and was binding on the Authority.
(25) We are also not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the directions contained in the Government of India decision dated 17th October, 1985 are not reasonable. In fact these directions appear to have been issued to maintain the basic character and pleasant environment of this area. Further these directions were interim in nature and were applicable only till the finalisation of the Master' Plan for 2001. Here, it will be relevant to note that even under the new Master Plan, construction of multi-storeyed building is not permissible in the area which falls under Lutyen Bungalow Zone.
(26) In support of contentions 5 and 6, the learned counsel referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as The Dharangadhra Chemicals Works vs Dharangadhra Municipality, . In this case relying on an earlier judgment in M/s. Universal Imports Agency vs The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Air 1964 Sc 44 the Supreme Court held that everything validly done under the provision of Bombay Act prior to its repeal shall be deemed to have been made under the Gujrat Act and will continue to operate until modified or rescinded by another order passed under the Gujrat Act. But here it may be noted that it was held so in view of clause (vi) of sub-section 2 of section 279 of the Gujrat Act which reads as under. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the said Acts. (vi) any appointment, notification, notice, tax fee, order, scheme, license, permission, rule, bye-law, or form made, issued, imposed or granted in respect of the said boroughs or districts and in force immediately before the date of the impeachment of this Act shall in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act be deemed to have been made, issued, imposed or granted under this Act in respect of the borough and shall continue in force until it is superseded or modified by any appointment, notification, notice, tax, fee, order, scheme, license, permission, rule, bye-law, or form made issued, imposed or granted under this Act."
(27) The ratio of the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Firstly, in this case, as explained hereinabove, the Ndmc had not yet approved the building plans of the petitioner when Government of India imposed ban on the construction of multi-storeyed buildings vide its decision dated 17th October, 1985. Secondly, under section 14 of the Delhi Development Act read with Building Bye- laws, No Objection Certificate from the Delhi Development Authority regarding the land use as per Master Plan/Zonal Plan is required to be submitted by the petitioner. Under section 41(1) of the Delhi Development Act, the Delhi Development Authority was bound to carry out any direction issued to it by the Central Government. Since vide its decision dated 17th October, 1985 the Central Government imposed a ban on construction of multi-storeyed buildings in New Delhi till the Master Plan for 2001 was finalised, the question of sanctioning the building plans of the petitioner did not arise after the aforesaid decision.
(28) For the reasons discussed above we find no merit in the writ petition, con- sequently, the writ petition is dismissed but we make no order as to costs. Since we have dismissed the writ petition, we direct the Land & Development Office to refund the amount of Rs. 1.03,50,118.00 deposited by the petitioner with that Office as additional premium for permission to construct multi-storeyed building on th plot in question, within a month from today, failing which petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum thereafter till payment.