Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"14.After coming into operation of any of the 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 upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in purpose and to the extent for and to which it is being used upon the date on which such plan comes into force."

(6) The Master Plan for Delhi came into operation after it was approved by the Central Government on 1/9/1962. It is not disputed that according to the Master Plan the area with which we are concerned in this case, 13, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, is to be used for commercial purposes. The 'Master Plan is statutory. This was so stated by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kishan Dass & another, Air 1969 S.C. 390. The Supreme Court said, "There is no controversy, in this case, that the Master Plan has been prepared under Section 7 by the Authority on 1/9/1962, and it has also come into force, as contemplated by Section 11." Prima facie it appears to me that by virtue of the operation of the Delhi Development Act, and the statutory Master Plan for Delhi which, as stated above, came into force on 1/9/1962, the purpose for which plot No. 13, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi could be used, has been changed from contractual "residential" purposes, to statutory "commercial" purposes too.

(9) A number of contentions have been raised by Mr. ISabharwal who appears for the Union of India. He says firstly that the lease is operative between the parties which means that each clause is operative between the parties, and the parties are bound under the same. Had it not been statutory enactment of the Delhi Development Act, particularly provision of Section 14 thereof, which prohibits the use of any land or building for purposes other than the contemplated by the Master Plan or Zonal Plan, there would have been no difficulty in accepting this contention. What happened in this case is that the statute which has come into operation after the execution of the perpetual lease deed, the inter se rights and obligations between the parties have been modified by the statute, and the statutory Master Plan. After: coming into force of the statutory Master Plan, in view of Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, the plot in question could be used for commercial purpose, postulated by the Master Plan for Delhi. The terms of the perpetual lease, other than the one relating to use of the plot, which as stated above was modified, continue to be operative.

For the purpose of saying that the plot No. 13, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, cannot be used for purposes of trade or business without prior consent of the Lesser, does not appear to have much force in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, and the statutory Master Plan, which prohibit use of any land or building for purposes other than that which is indicated in the Master Plan for Delhi. This Clause 2(6) would, prima facie in my view stand modified by the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and the statutory Master Plan, which was prepared by the Delhi Development Authority.

(14) It is also contended by Mr. Sabharwal that the remand order of the Division Bench, dated 2/5/1985, would not permit the petitioners from raising any question regarding Section 14 of the Act and the statutory Master Plan, I find that the contention regarding the effect of provisions of Section 14 of the Act, and the statutory Master Plan, have been specifically taken in paragraph 13 and in ground (X), both of which are reproduced herebelow:

"ACCORDINGLY the use of the land for purposes other than for which the same is earmarked in the master plan and the zonal development plan has been prohibited by law. As such the land in the Connaught Place are falling in Zone D-l including the said plot of land in Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, could not be used or permitted to be used for purposes other than commercial. Accordingly these requirements of the law superseded the provisions of the perpetual lease deed dated 23-10-1966."