Oberoi Apartments Owners ... vs North Delhi Municipal ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 2067 Del

$~7
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+               LPA 501/2018
                     Reserved on:      01st April, 2019
                     Date of decision: 16th April, 2019
OBEROI APARTMENTS OWNERS ASSOCIATION             ..... Appellant
                Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Senior Adv.
                           with Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta and
                           Mr. Aditya Mishra, Adv.

                  Versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS
                                            ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
                           Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Adv. for R1.
                           Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
                           Mr.Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. with
                           Mr. Lalit Gupta and Mr. Siddharth
                           Arora, Adv. for R2 to R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI


ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

CM No. 35414/2018 (application for grant of permission to file Letters Patent Appeal)

By way of the present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Delhi High Court, the appellant impugns order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 6232/2016 titled East India Hotels Limited vs. North DMC, whereby the single Judge has restored a certain area that was earlier approved but was thereafter

LPA 501/2018 page 1 of 21 deleted from the building plan sanctioned by North Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter the "Corporation"), whereby the single Judge has revalidated the sanctioned building plan. Since the appellant was not a party to W.P.(C) No. 6232/2016, the present letters patent appeal has been filed also seeking leave to appeal by way of CM No. 35414/2018 filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 comprising owners of apartments and properties in a building known as „Oberoi Apartments‟ situate at 2 Sham Nath Marg, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi (hereinafter "Oberoi Apartments" or "subject property"). In the application seeking leave to appeal, the appellant association has averred that it was not aware of the pendency of the writ petition since it was not made party to the proceedings ; and that the petitioner therein has obtained the impugned order in collusion with the respondent Corporation behind the appellant‟s back. The appellant alleges that by doing so, the petitioner has procured for itself the right to carry-out further construction in the subject property, to the detriment of the members of the appellant association.

3. It is not in dispute that the appellant is an association of persons who own apartments and properties in Oberoi Apartments; and to that extent members of the appellant have an obvious interest in the subject property and in revalidation of the sanctioned building plans. The appellant is therefore entitled to be heard in the matter, since the decision rendered will affect the rights and interests of its members.

LPA 501/2018 page 2 of 21

4. Accordingly CM No. 35414/2018 seeking leave to appeal is allowed and the present appeal filed by the association is entertained.

LPA 501/2018

5. The dispute in the present matter relates to several apartment blocks constructed upon the subject property bearing No. 2 Sham Nath Marg, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi admeasuring about 6.06 acres. The apartments so constructed have come to be known as „Oberoi Apartments‟.

6. A brief conspectus of relevant facts is as follows :

6.1 The land in question was purchased by respondent No. 2/M/s East India Hotels ("EIH") Limited from certain individuals by registered conveyance deed dated 29.11.1967;

6.2 To begin with, vidé sanction dated 02.03.1971 the then Municipal Corporation of Delhi (predecessor in interest to the North DMC/respondent No. 1) accorded permission for construction of apartments and cottages comprised in five blocks with a total sanctioned area of 160840.38 square feet, which sanction was valid for a period of three years;

6.3 Thereafter, it transpires, two of the five blocks that were sanctioned for construction were in the possession and occupation of two different tenants and due to pending litigation with such tenants, it was not possible to construct the said two blocks;

LPA 501/2018 page 3 of 21 6.4 The two blocks in question comprised an area of 29664 square feet and in view of the inability to construct, at the request of EIH, the Corporation deleted two of the five blocks from the sanctioned building plan and the area sanctioned for construction was thereby reduced;

6.5 Construction of the subject property was thereafter completed and a completion certificate was obtained sometime in 1976-77 ;

6.6 Between 1977 and 1993 EIH sold various apartments and cottages by executing necessary conveyance deeds/sale deeds in favour of third party purchasers;

6.7 Over a period of time, the disputes with the two tenants came to be resolved and the tenants vacated the two blocks that were under their occupation;

6.8 Thereupon, EIH applied for restoration of the FAR that was previously deleted, seeking revalidation of the sanctioned building plan that had earlier been granted on 02.03.1971. After a round of litigation the Corporation responded to such request by order dated 31.05.2016 in the following terms:

"a) The plot in question is group housing wherein there are several co-owners. The applicant has submitted the building plan application mentioning therein that he is the absolute owner of entire plot. However, as per the documents submitted by the applicant he has not shown any such documents in support of absolute owner of the plot.

LPA 501/2018 page 4 of 21

(b) The layout plan of property under reference was approved long back in the year 1968. Based on this layout plan, sanction was granted over in 1971 and again in 1976 (for addition / alteration). As regard, the revalidation of building plan sanctioned in 1971 the same does not apply in such 40 years old case as the BBL permits revalidation only within the period of its validity i.e. 5 years now and 3 years at that time. Further, a building plan for addition / alteration had also been sanctioned by MCD 1976, this has not been disclosed by the applicant.

(c)The proposal of the applicant does not fall within the ambit of site plan which shows two portions as deleted without any future course of action thereupon.

(d) Ownership of the entire plot which was vesting in the name of Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. at the time of sanctioning of building plan. Now this ownership has been changed hands from Oberoi to other co-owners of the group housing society.

(e)Whether completion certificate of existing construction had been issued. Please clarify.

(f) Status of unauthorised construction and encroachments lying within the ground housing plot."

(Emphasis Supplied)

6.9 The Corporation further took the following position in its order dated 31.05.2016 :

"Duration of sanction

Clause 6.8 of Building Bye-Laws 1983

LPA 501/2018 page 5 of 21 The sanction once accepted through building permit, shall remain valid for two years from the date of sanction, for the residential, industrial and commercial building (four storey) and shall remain valid for the three years from the date of sanction for larger complexes and multi storey buildings and such building as classified as under Clause 2.54.2, 2.54.3 & 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.

The Petitioner in his reply has given the reference of clause 2.21.1 & 2.21.1(g) of Unified Building Bye Laws for Delhi-2016 & these clauses have been interpreted to facilitate himself. The Unified Building Bye Laws of Delhi 2016 has no difference with Building Bye Laws 1983. So far Unified BBL 2016 has not been introduced by the All the three Municipal corporations because it has not been notified by the Delhi Government. Further this previously deleted FAR can be granted if other co- owners give their NOC or all co-owners jointly apply for the same.

In view of above, the Building Plan sanctioned vide File No.240/B/HQ/1970 dated 02.03.1971 cannot be processed for revalidation as requested by the applicant vide his application dated 27.01.2016 and reminder dated 06.02.2016 & 03.03.2016."

(Emphasis Supplied)

LPA 501/2018 page 6 of 21 6.10 Against Corporation‟s order dated 31.05.2016 aforesaid rejecting EIH‟s request for revalidation of sanctioned building plan and restoration of the previously deleted sanctioned area, EIH filed W.P. (C) No. 6232/2016 in this court. By impugned order dated 03.10.2016, the single Judge allowed the petition and directed the Corporation to restore the previously deleted sanctioned area to the extent of 29664 square feet.

6.11 It is this order dated 03.10.2016 made in W.P. (C) No. 6232/2016 that is impugned by way of the present appeal.

7. The appellant‟s case is that on 26.05.1976 the Corporation had permitted additions and alterations to be made in the subject property and had allowed EIH to construct a whole block of apartments as also a club house, whereby the sanctioned area that was deleted in 1971 was allowed to be consumed and that such permissible area thereby already stands exhausted in large measure, leaving only a fraction still available for further construction.

8. The appellant contends that EIH did not disclose to the single Judge the revalidation of the sanctioned building plan done in 1976 thereby misleading the single Judge into believing that an area of 29664 square feet was still available for additional construction. EIH responds to this contention by saying that all that happened in 1976 was that a draft revalidation plan was prepared, which plan was however never got sanctioned by the Corporation and no construction was made pursuant to such draft plan.

LPA 501/2018 page 7 of 21

9. Be that as it may, the Corporation‟s stand was not accepted by the single Judge ; and EIH prevailed in the writ proceedings. In compliance of order dated 03.10.2016 made by the single Judge, the Corporation has by order dated 10.03.2017 revalidated the sanctioned building plan for the entire 29664 square feet.

10. The appellant had also filed an independent writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 8688/2018 challenging the revalidation of the sanctioned building plan in favour of EIH, which petition was however withdrawn in view of the opinion expressed by the single Judge that the writ petition was not maintainable since order dated 03.10.2016 had already been made by a Co- ordinate Bench ; and the appellant had reserved liberty to challenge order dated 03.10.2016, which is what the appellant has done by way of the present petition.

11. Other things apart, the legal bases of the appellant‟s challenge to revalidation of the sanctioned building plan are certain provisions of the Unified Building Bye-Laws framed by the Delhi Development Authority under the power conferred by Section 57 (1) of the DDA Act, 1957 for sanction of building plans, including in particular, for revalidation of such plans. While there is some dispute as to which Building Bye-Laws would apply in the present case, it transpires that the provisions relevant to revalidation of sanctioned building plans under Unified Building Bye- Laws, 1983 ("UBBL 1983") and those under Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 2016 ("DBBL 2016") are materially the same and therefore regardless of which Bye-Laws apply, the denouement remains the same.

LPA 501/2018 page 8 of 21

12. The relevant provisions of both Bye-Laws are extracted below for ease of reference :

UBBL 1983 : CLAUSE 6.8

"6.8 Duration of Sanction - The sanction once accepted through building permit, shall remain valid for two years from the date of sanction, for the residential, industrial and commercial building (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 clauses 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."

(Emphasis Supplied)

DBBL 2016 : CLAUSE 2.20 and 2.21

"2.20 Validity Period of Building Permit The sanction once accepted through building permit shall remain valid for five years from the date of issue of sanction and shall be revalidated before the expiry of this period. Revalidation shall be subject to the Master Plan for Delhi/Zonal Plan Regulation and Building Bye-Laws applicable at the time of original sanction.

Notes: 1. No building activity can be carried out after the expiry of validity of such Building Permit. Owner should apply for completion/occupancy certificate within five working days of the expiry of the validity period.

2. No completion/occupancy shall be entertained after the expiry of valid extension of time for construction.

LPA 501/2018 page 9 of 21 2.21 Procedure for Obtaining Revalidation of Building Permit 2.21.1 The Building Permit can be revalidated for a period of one year at a time from the date of expiry of the validity of the original permit on payment of the required validation fees (See Annexure III). Application for such revalidation shall be submitted on plain paper along with the following documents:-

(a)Original sanctioned building plan

(b) Revalidation fee that shall be equal to fee of the original permit.

(c)Latest House Tax Receipt.

(d) Valid Extension of Time for granting Revalidation,in case the property is leasehold.

(e) Documents in support of construction, if any, having been done within valid period of sanction.

(f) Certificate of supervision from Supervisor that the construction is being carried under the supervision according to the plans sanctioned by the authority/concerned local body.

(g) Ownership documents for updated ownership title after previous sanction if applicable"

(Emphasis Supplied)

13. It is on the basis of the foregoing provisions of the Building Bye-

Laws that the appellant contends it was impermissible to grant EIH an extension or revalidation of the sanctioned building plan. Apart therefrom, as recorded above, it is also the appellant‟s contention that a substantial portion of the permissible construction area had already been utilised and exhausted by EIH in making additions and alterations in 1976.

LPA 501/2018 page 10 of 21

14. In affidavit dated 30.11.2018 filed by it the Corporation has taken the following stand :

"6. That it has been falsely alleged by the Appellant in the present LPA that after 1976, there was no balance FAR which could have been restored in favour of the owner. As per the original sanctioned building plan and records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi/ North DMC, the FAR to the extent of 29664 square feet was never previously restored in favour of the owner before the decision taken by the Building Plan Committee in its meeting held on 14.02.2017. Thus, this FAR to the extent of 29664 square feet was available to the owner which has been restored after passing of order dated 03.10.2016 by the Ld. single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 6232/2016.

"7. It is further stated that the appellant are misleading this Hon'ble Court as they have annexed a site plan dated 25.05.1976 which is never sanctioned by the respondent corporation rather as per available office record the building plan application vide file No 650/B/HQ/75 & 1/A/HQ/76 was rejected. Further the appellant in para 2(g) stated that the total deleted FAR of two blocks is 29664 which is also factually incorrect as the total deleted FAR of two blocks is 37080 Sq. Ft. (29664+7416) as is evident from the sanctioned building plan annexed as Annexure P-4."

XXXXX "10. It is further submitted that infact the residents and members of the appellant association have raised unauthorised construction on the existing structure of the property and the respondent corporation has been taking appropriate action as per law from time to time. The brief status report as received

LPA 501/2018 page 11 of 21 from the respective zone is also attached herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court."

(Emphasis Supplied)

15. It is noteworthy that in affidavit dated 14.03.2019, the Chief Engineer (Building-Headquarters), North DMC has stated that unauthorised construction exists in various portions of Oberoi Apartments, which portions have been booked for unauthorised construction over the years. Along with the said affidavit, a list of 69 such apartments and portions which have unauthorised construction has been attached, which evidences that several members of the appellant association have undertaken unauthorised construction in their respective apartments/portions, thereby putting EIH in a position whereby the unutilised area of the building plan as sanctioned in 1971, that should otherwise be available to EIH for making further construction, would now stand consumed by way of unauthorised construction undertaken by the members of the appellant association. This would also make EIH answerable when seeking revalidation of the originally sanctioned building plan.

16. Senior Counsel appearing for EIH contends that other things apart, being conscious of the fact that there was unutilized constructible area available that EIH would be interested in availing once the tenants/occupants of the two blocks vacated the same, in the documents of sale executed by EIH in favour of various purchasers of the apartments EIH has specifically reserved its right to make further construction in the subject property. In this behalf attention of the court was drawn to the following clause in the standard-form sale deed dated 07.05.1991 executed by EIH in

LPA 501/2018 page 12 of 21 favour of one of the purchasers, which clause is extracted below for ease of reference:

"AND WHEREAS there is a land and building which is at present occupied by M/s. Francis and M/s A.R. Dutt (Photographer) and that land is not subject matter of this Deed of Sale and the Vendor is at liberty to construct any buildings or develop and sell the said land and/or building thereon in any manner, the Vendor deems fit and proper and the Vendee shall have no objection to that."

(Emphasis Supplied)

17. A similar clause appears in yet another standard-form of sale deed registered on 17.10.2006 :

"AND WHEREAS there is a land and buildings which is at present occupied by M/s. Francis grid M/s A.R. Dutt (Photographer) and that land is not subject matter of this Deed of Sale and the property known as Oberoi Apartments; and the Vendor is at liberty to construct any building or develop and sell the said land and / or building thereon in any manner, the Vendor deems fit and proper and the Vendee shall have no objection to that;"

(Emphasis Supplied)

18. It is important to note that the individuals who purchased apartments /cottages under the standard-form sale deeds as aforesaid are infact members of the appellant association, who are now therefore claiming rights which are in excess of the contract of sale under which they acquired title to their respective portions of the subject property. In fact the claim made is in the teeth of a specific covenant of sale as contained in the sale deeds.

LPA 501/2018 page 13 of 21

19. It is further pointed-out that individuals, who are members of appellant association, have by way of different writ petitions already challenged the revalidation of the sanctioned building plan, which petitions have been dismissed by the concerned courts. The present appeal, it is argued, is therefore a devious attempt on the part of appellant association to re-agitate the same cause on behalf of its members, which cause has already been rejected at the hands of individual members by the court. It is for this reason that the present appeal has come to be filed with much delay in August, 2018 impugning the Corporation‟s order of March, 2017.

20. The legal issue at hand, namely whether it is permissible to extend the validity period of a sanctioned building plan after expiry of original period was considered by a Division Bench of this court in the matter of Rajeshwar Parshad & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported as (1989) 39 DLT 212 in which the court opined as under:

"16. Under sub-s. (2) of S. 337, the owner is bound to erect the building in accordance with the sanction and also so as not to contravene any provisions of the Act or any other law or of any bye-law made thereunder. The owner has nevertheless to commence the erection of the building within one year of the date of the sanction and if he does not do so he has to apply for fresh sanction. ...... Under S. 341, the Commissioner, at the time of granting sanction, has to specify a reasonable period after the commencement of the building within which the building is to be completed. To fix a reasonable time is the discretion of the Commissioner and this cannot be circumscribed by any building bye-laws framed by the Central Government or by any other

LPA 501/2018 page 14 of 21 authority. It may not, however, be possible for the Commissioner to specify a reasonable period in respect of each building at the time of sanction and he may, therefore, generally fix a period which he thinks reasonable keeping in view the extent of the construction. But then there is no reason why he cannot take into consideration subsequent events entailing delay in construction and on that account extent (sic) the time. We do not find any limit on the power of the Commissioner to allow extension of the period.The prohibition under S. 341 is only to the extent that building operation shall not be continued if the owner had no valid sanction at that time. If the period originally fixed has expired it does not mean that the plan has become a dead document. It merely lies dormant and is reactivated with the grant of extension. The section does not contain any prohibition as to the number of extensions which could be granted. No specific guidelines may appear to have been laid in S. 341 as to under what circumstances extension of period should be granted but the guidelines appear to be inherent therein. The Commissioner is to specify a reasonable period for the completion of the building and, as noted above, at the initial stage he may fix time considering the nature of the building. .......... If the building is not completed within the period originally fixed, it is not that (sic) the owner has a choice either to apply for a fresh sanction or to apply for extension of the period. If the Commissioner on an application for extension of the period has allowed extension, there is no necessity to obtain a fresh sanction. Extension of period is the rule rather than exception. We do not see what particular advantage is gained by the MCD in requiring the owner to apply for fresh sanction except to demand more fee and requiring the

LPA 501/2018 page 15 of 21 owner to undergo all the processes in getting the sanction. We think liberal construction is what is required as to the applicability of S. 341. If the building is not completed within the originally fixed period it is not that that construction becomes unauthorised at any point of time. We think it is the interest of all concerned that the building is completed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. We do not mean to lay down that an application for extension of period can be made at any time after the original period has expired but that must be made within a reasonable period and as to what is the reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It could be that in the meanwhile there has been change of building bye-laws or other such similar causes. ......... ."

21. While the matter was reserved for judgment on 01.04.2019, the appellant submitted written synopsis dated 09.04.2019 in support of the appeal, although no such liberty had been granted by the order reserving judgment. Be that as it may, we have perused the written synopsis so filed and have duly considered the submissions and the documents attached with the synopsis, just to be sure that we do not omit any material aspect of the matter. We would briefly deal with the contentions raised in written synopsis dated 09.04.2019 as under:

(i) The appellant states that by sale deed dated 08.04.2016, EIH sold the portion of the subject property that was under possession of the tenants to one Shri Vinayak Infraland Private Limited; and that the factum of sale was not disclosed by EIH at the time of filing its application for revalidation of sanctioned plan. It is also the appellant‟s contention that the application for revalidation could not

LPA 501/2018 page 16 of 21 have been entertained at the behest of EIH at all, since EIH was no longer owner of the subject property as of the date of the application. We however find that this contention is incorrect on point of fact since the application for revalidation was made on 27.01.2016, that is prior to the sale of the portion of the subject property by EIH vide sale deed dated 08.04.2016 as is borne-out from North DMC‟s order dated 31.05.2016 which records the date of application as 27.01.2016;

(ii) Another contention raised by the appellant is that up-to 1976, EIH had already constructed 97 dwelling units on the subject property ; and since a maximum of 15 dwelling units is permissible per acre of land, on a total plot size 6.06 acre only 91 dwelling units are permissible. The appellant accordingly contends that since EIH had already made more than the permissible number of dwelling units on the subject property, restoration of an additional constructible area of 29664 square feet is impermissible since no additional dwelling units can at all be constructed. Without commenting on the number of dwelling units constructed or on the additional number of dwelling units permissible on the subject property, we may only say that the restoration of 29664 square feet constructible area would of course be subject to EIH complying with all other rules, regulations and bye-laws as may be applicable to any further construction to be undertaken on the subject property.

We make it clear that our decision in this matter does not in any manner grant to EIH waiver of compliance with any other

LPA 501/2018 page 17 of 21 applicable rules, regulations and bye-laws for construction on the subject property as per the extant legal dispensation.

(iii) The appellant further contends that the learned single Judge has proceeded merely on the consideration of the law laid down in Rajeshwar Prasad (supra) while omitting to consider the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Dev Raj Gupta vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation reported as 1997 (42) DRJ 510. We have perused the judgment of the court in Dev Raj Gupta and we find that the relevant portion of the ruling reads as under:

"8. The first question has to be answered against the petitioners. We do not agree with the petitioners that mere making of an application seeking sanctioning of the building plans gives any vested right to the petitioners. Since the laws relating to planned development of any township and the municipal laws are meant for the public good, they apply on the dates on which they are brought into force and even the pending applications must be decided in accordance with the law as applicable on the date on which the decision is to be taken and sanction to be released. Without entering into an independent analysis of the law on the point it would suffice to refer to two recent Division Bench decisions of this Court namely M/s. Dewan and Sons Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DDA (CW 647/85 decided on 28.2.97 and M/s. JMP Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. VS. DDA 1996(1) AD Delhi 71 wherein the Division Benches (to which one of us R. C. Lahoti, J. has been a party) have taken the view that even in the pending applications a sanction contrary to the law applicable on the date on which the sanction comes up for being given and released, cannot be granted."

LPA 501/2018 page 18 of 21 We have no quarrel with the above proposition. However, for one, we are assured by the submissions made that the restoration of the constructible area as made by North DMC in compliance of the order of the single Judge is indeed in conformity with the bye-laws, rules and regulations as applicable on the date on which the restoration of area was granted; and moreover, in this case there was no fresh application for sanction but only one for restoration of a validly sanctioned building plan whereby some constructible area that was earlier deleted from the building plan was sought to be restored. Accordingly, in our view, the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Dev Raj Gupta was duly adhered to.

We therefore do not find anything in written synopsis dated 09.04.2019 that would sway us from what we propose to hold.

22. In view of the above, the following position emerges:

a. At the time of obtaining sanction of the building plan on 02.03.1971, constructible area aggregating to 29664 square feet was, at EIH‟s request, deleted from the sanctioned building plan because this area was not available for construction at that time since it was under the occupation of tenants;

b. As per the stand taken by the Corporation, on affidavit, the unutilized area of 29664 square feet was never consumed or exhausted by EIH at anytime ;

LPA 501/2018                                                     page 19 of 21
        c.      There is unauthorised construction made by members of

appellant association, which has been booked and action initiated against it by the Corporation, which action will be taken to its logical conclusion, in due course, in accordance with law ;

d. In compliance of impugned order dated 03.10.2016 made by the single Judge, the Corporation has vidé order dated 10.03.2017 granted revalidation/extension of the sanctioned building plan to EIH to the extent of the unutilized 29664 square feet;

e. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Rajeshwar Parshad (supra) has held that the restriction on revalidating of sanctioned building plan as contained in Bye-Law 6.8 of Building Bye-Laws 1983, which is the same as Bye-Law 2.20 of Unified Building Bye-Laws 2016, does not curtail the power of the Commissioner to grant revalidation of sanctioned building plan and extension of time for construction;

f. Also, what has been done by order dated 10.03.2017 made by the Corporation is to restore the constructible area of 29664 square feet that was deleted from sanctioned building plan dated 02.03.1971, which plan was only dormant, not dead, by reason of the said area remaining unutilized for the reasons discussed above.

23. We make it clear that nothing contained in this judgment is to be construed so as to permit any waiver of any other bye-laws, rules and regulations as may be applicable to the subject property and EIH shall be

LPA 501/2018 page 20 of 21 entitled to avail of the restored constructible area of 29664 square feet subject to compliance with all other applicable bye-laws, rules and regulations, including those relating to the maximum permissible number of dwelling units on the subject property.

24. In view of and subject to the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in order dated 03.10.2016 made by the single Judge. Accordingly the present appeal is dismissed; without however, any order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

                                             ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                                                            (JUDGE)




                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE

APRIL 16, 2019/uj




LPA 501/2018                                                     page 21 of 21