Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Learned Amicus Curie pointed out that the Development Agreement dated 18.6.1999 between the Petitioner was three months prior in time to the application submitted to the Collector. Barely five days later after having applied for permission to the Collector on 10.9.1999 the plan was submitted for approval to the PRDA on 16.9.1999. Yet the nature of the proposed construction was intentionally concealed from the Collector, despite repeated queries by him, till after grant of sanction by the PRDA. The PRDA sanctioned the plan on 16.12.1999 but yet issued the communication-dated 25.10.2000 at Annexure 7 that it was finding it difficult to sanction the plan in absence of the "No Objection" certificate of the Collector. Then followed the fresh sanction on 23.11.2000 by the Page 0007 PRDA without the "No Objection" certificate of the Collector only on the confirmation sought from the Collector that the lease was a generation-to-generation lease, when the Collector was still not aware of the nature of the proposed construction. Under the Khas Mahal Government instruction dated 11.3.1993 issued vide Letter No. 8/AN Policy 7 of 1993 Kha-344 R, any application for transfer of Khas Mahal lands with the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner, in so far as the town of Patna was concerned, had to be approved and sanctioned by the State Government. In the present case, there is no application for transfer much less permission of the State Government. The transfer of the lands and interest in property by the petitioner to the builder to the extent of 65% without permission was therefore clearly illegal and a breach of the terms of the lease. Similarly, under the same letter permission from the State Government for change of user of the land was also mandatory which has not been obtained. Section 76 of the Development Authority Act will have an overriding effect only in so far as the question of building specifications of the proposed construction is concerned over the building specifications provided under the Khas Mahal Manual. It does not render nugatory the requirement for permission for such construction from the land owner, the Collector/State Government. To read it in any other manner will create absurd results. The construction made after issuance of the show cause notice by the Collector and twice directions of the PRDA to stop such construction, the absence of any permission to transfer, the absence of any permission to construct from the Collector makes the construction patently illegal. Paragraph 19 of the writ petition read with Annexure 16 dated 29.8.2001 made it apparent that the construction was at infancy when the show cause notice and directions to stop construction were issued and petitioner came to this Court. The counter affidavit of the Collector discloses that during the pendency of the writ application without stay of the operation of the impugned show cause dated 23.8.2001 or of the direction to stop construction dated 29.8.2001 and 19.9.2001, the multi-storeyed apartment building has been completed and sold to unsuspecting purchasers. In any event the sanction by the PRDA was conditional in nature. The condition not having been fulfilled the sanction was inconsequential and the construction made in pursuance of the same is illegal.

19. The Collector in response to the letter for permission dated 10.9.1999, on 15.9.1999 required the petitioner to submit a copy of the plan of the proposed construction so that grant of permission for the same may be considered. The petitioner and the builder barely days in time applied to the PRDA for sanction of the building plan on 16.9.1999. On 20.9.1999 the petitioner replied to the Collector reiterating her earlier communication of construction of a new dwelling building through a Developer. That the plan had been submitted to the PRDA and if necessary a copy could be submitted to the Collector after obtaining a copy from the PRDA, otherwise a copy shall be submitted after approval. On 12.10.1999 the Collector remanded the petitioner to submit a copy of the plan of the proposed construction. The petitioner on 13.10.1999 instead of submitting a copy of the plan to the Collector requested the PRDA to expedite the sanction. On 11.11.1999 the Collector again wrote to the petitioner to deposit a copy of the plan before it. The petitioner then on 18.11.1999 requested the Collector to direct the PRDA to expedite the plan. The Collector, therefore, all this while was not at all aware of the nature of the proposed construction to be made on his lands and the transfer of ownership rights already done. Surprisingly after the letter dated 15.9.1999 of the Collector, the language of the Page 0012 communication changes requiring a copy of the plan sanctioned by the PRDA to be submitted. In this background the plan submitted to the PRDA came up for consideration before the PRDA. The Court had called for the original records of the PRDA. The noting dated 1.10.1999 of the PRDA states that the lands were Khas Mahal. From Clause 6 of the lease deed available with the PRDA commercial user of the lands was prohibited. Therefore no objection from the Collector was mandatory. That the plan could be considered subject to the aforesaid condition. The PRDA had the lease deed before it and was therefore also conscious of the fact that the lands were Khas Mahal. Transfer of leasehold rights and construction contrary to Clause 2 and 3 of the lease deed was prohibited, that there was no approval from the Collector for such transfer and construction, deliberately decided to put the cart before the horse. The file noticing dated 13.10.1999 deliberately gives a twist to the whole matter by noting that the matter was pending for approval before the Collector which established the title of the applicant who had been asked by the Collector to submit a copy of the sanctioned plan. Quite clearly there was no matter pending before the Collector for transfer of part of the property or for the construction of a multi storeyed apartment complex. It is apparent that the Builder who was pursuing the matter before the PRDA managed to raise irrelevant issues to give a twist deliberately to justify such illegal premature sanction.

21. The PRDA then sanctioned the proposed plan on 16.12.1999 subject to grant of permission for the construction from the Collector. Surprisingly after grant of such sanction the PRDA wrote to the Collector on 25.10.2000 that in absence of the lease deed it was finding it difficult to sanction the plan. At this stage the noting of the PRDA dated 1.10.1999 noticed hereinbefore assumes importance as it refers to Clause 6 of the lease deed submitted along with the building plan for sanction. On 13.11.2000 the Collector simply forwarded a copy of the lease deed to the PRDA. To pause at this stage, the Collector was not informed or Page 0013 made aware that transfer of the lease hold rights in favour of the builder had already been done on 18.6.1999 and that in place of a dwelling house a multi-storeyed residential apartment complex far in excess of the residential house of the petitioner who was issueless was to be constructed inconsideration of a 35% interest in land and building to be retained by the petitioner while 65% would vest by transfer in the builder. This receipt of a copy of the lease deed from the Collector, already available with the PRDA since much earlier, was treated by the PRDA as grant of permission by the Collector for such transfer and change of user contrary to Clause 2 and 3 of the lease deed. The PRDA thus proceeded to re-approve the plan on 25.11.2000. The condition imposed at the time of sanction that the construction could commence only after the permission of the Collector makes it apparent that the PRDA was fully conscious of the need for prior permission of the Collector, the lands being Khas Mahal, yet it granted such conditional permission. After the plan had been passed by the PRDA in this manner, the petitioner on 5.12.2000 submitted a copy of the sanctioned plan to the Collector. The builder was still to show his presence to the Collector or the PRDA. No sooner that the plan was submitted to the Collector the impugned show cause notice then came to be issued on 23.8.2001 that the Collector had been made aware that there had been transfer of the leasehold property without permission and that a multi storeyed residential apartment was proposed to be constructed thus also commercialising the property without permission amounting to a breach of the terms of the lease and to show cause why it be not cancelled.

It was submitted that for reason of the non obstinate clause, once the building plan was sanctioned by the PRDA under the Development Authority Act, the construction undertaken in pursuance of the same was legal. The absence of permission for transfer from the Collector and for the construction was inconsequential and that the sanction by the PRDA had overriding effect. The argument has only to be stated to be rejected. Section 2(k) and proviso to Section 11 of the Development Authority Act read together with Section 32 and 36 of the Act By-laws (4) of the PRDA make it mandatory for even the Collector, the owner of the land to seek sanction from the PRDA of the proposed construction. The application of the lessee - petitioner to the PRDA was required to be accompanied by the permission of the land owner/Collector for such construction. The PRDA was under obligation, under its own laws, to mandatorily require the same before processing the application for sanction. Any other interpretation shall render the provisions of the Khas Mahal and the rights of the Government as the owner of the lands completely meaningless and redundant. It is settled that that such an interpretation is to be avoided if the two legislations can harmoniously co-exist by a reasonable interpretation. The Court therefore rejects this argument. This Court therefore holds that there was no proper application under law by the land owner before the PRDA for sanction of a building plan on its lands. Sanction purported to have been granted by the PRDA at the behest of a person other than the land owner is no sanction in the eye of law and therefore is of no avail or benefit whatsoever to the petitioner.