Delhi High Court
Abaskar Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs Land & Development Officer & Ors on 13 July, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th July, 2012
+ LPA No.766/2010
% ABASKAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ....Appellant
Through: Mr. Jayant Nath, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Vatsala Singh, Adv.
Versus
LAND & DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Madhu Tewatia & Ms. Sidhi
Arora, Advs. for NDMC.
Mr. Sachin Datta, Adv. for UOI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 27.08.2010 of the
learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.7014/1999 preferred by the
appellant. The said writ petition was filed impugning the monetary demand
dated 10.04.1999 upheld on 26.07.1999 and 12.11.1999 of the respondent
Land and Development Officer (L&DO) on the appellant for granting ex
post facto sanction for construction of a multi-storied building on Plot
No.26, Curzon Road, New Delhi. Notice of this appeal was issued and the
operation of the judgment stayed subject to the appellant depositing a
further sum of `1/- crore with the Registrar of this Court and which amount
was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit. The appeal was admitted for
hearing. The appellant applied for hearing of the appeal contending that the
matter in controversy is covered by the judgment dated 23.01.2012 of this
Court in W.P.(C) No.6742/2000 titled Ashoka Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI and
in other connected matters. The appeal was as such set down for hearing for
today.
2. The counsel for the respondent fairly admits the controversy in the
present case to be covered by the judgment (supra). He however states that
the respondents are in the process of preferring an SLP against the said
judgment and seeks the present appeal to be held over for the said purpose.
3. We however do not see any reason to so hold over the matter. A
perusal of the judgment dated 23.01.2012 (supra) of this Court shows that
the same is with respect to a large number of other similar matters in the
area of Connaught Place in New Delhi. It is deemed expedient that parity is
maintained in all the matters.
4. The senior counsel for the appellant at this stage contends that even
for judgment dated 23.01.2012 to be applied qua the appellant, the 'crucial
date' has to be determined. Attention in this regard is invited to the earlier
judgment dated 19.05.1998 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.1233/1972 titled Ansal & Saigal Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. L&DO and in
other connected matters, being an earlier round of litigation concerning
these disputes. He further contends that the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment has held the 'crucial date' in the case of the appellant to
be 10.03.1975. It is contended that the 'crucial date' should be either
09.12.1970 or 23.07.1971. It is argued that the same will have relevance to
the rate to be applied qua the appellant. We have heard the counsels on this
aspect.
5. The counsels are in tandem that the computation of 'crucial date' has
to be as under:
(a) The date of receipt of application (complete in all
respects) for conversion accompanied by the requisite
documents and the earnest money, where applicable, will
be the crucial date for determining the land rates
applicable for calculation of conversion charges;
(b) In cases where no application for conversion has been
made or where such application is made after sanction of
the building plan, date of sanction of such plan by the
local body will be crucial date;
(c) In cases where application has neither been made nor
construction executed in accordance with the originally
sanctioned plan but is executed as per the revalidated
plan, the date of revalidation of such plan will be the
crucial date.
6. The senior counsel for the appellant states that the appellant did make
an application for conversion. The counsel for the respondent L&DO
controverts; it is stated that the so called application is nothing but a query
of the appellant in this regard. The senior counsel for the appellant is also
unable to satisfy us that there was any application complete in all respects
and accompanied by the requisite documents and earnest money submitted
by the appellant for conversion. The question of Clause (a) supra applying
thus does not arise.
7. It is also not in dispute that the sanctioned plans were revalidated in
the instant case. The senior counsel for the appellant however contends that
the construction is in accordance with the original sanctioned plans and not
in accordance with the revalidated plans. We have enquired as to what was
the need for revalidation if the construction had been completed in
accordance with the sanctioned plan. No answer has been forthcoming.
The senior counsel has generally attempted to state that the revalidation had
to be obtained for the reason of the validity of the original sanctioned plans
having lapsed. Even if that be so, as long as the completion / occupation
certificate is not issued during the validity of the sanctioned plans, the
construction will be deemed to be as per the revalidated plans. The learned
Single Judge also has treated the case of the appellant to be covered by
Clause (c) above and has held the date of revalidation of the plans to be the
'crucial date' in the case of the appellant. The appellant has been unable to
shake the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge or what has been
observed by us hereinabove. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with
the finding of the learned Single Judge qua the 'crucial date'.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of by observing that the plot of
land of the appellant shall also be governed by the judgment dated
23.01.2012 aforesaid of the Division Bench of this Court, with the 'crucial
date' as 10.03.1975 as determined in the impugned judgment. The amounts
deposited in this Court with interest accrued thereon be released in favour of
the respondent L&DO.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
JULY 13, 2012
'gsr'
