Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REPORTABLE
Versus
WITH
AND
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Introductory Facts
Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 24029 of 2005, the lease deed
2005 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.9150 of 2007,
to the facts of each case in greater detail, except the facts of the
lead case, i.e., Civil Appeal No.6962 of 2005, R.K. Mittal v. State
August, 1999 in favour Shri R.K. Mittal, Shri Ashok Garg and
4
approved plans and to use the premises only for the purpose
for which it was committed in terms of the lease and as per law.
days, failing which action would be taken as per the lease deed.
appellants not only filed objections but also appeared before the
meter area of plot per annum and had invited suggestions from
7
reports. Noticing these facts and obviously taking the view that
reads as follows :
noticed by the High Court and rightly so, that the Development
India[(2000) 7 SCC 22], the High Court not only dismissed the
Show cause notices had been issued to all the banks to wind
firm decision to evict all the banks from the residential sectors
March 2011, wherein a clear stand was taken that as per the
12
under:
favour the land was transferred was bound to comply with the
15
Regulation 2(g) means the use of any land or part thereof in the
also depict the residential use by allocating the area of land for
housing, for different and defined densities and plotted
18
under: -
implications.
the Act, the Regulations and the bye laws, including the
beyond the scope of the Master Plan, the byelaws and the
statutory provisions. Regulation 3.22 of the Regulations, 2006
occupancy certificate.
Contentions
been placed upon Public Notice dated 30th March, 2000 and
the byelaws, rules and regulations nor the layout plan of the
sectors.
643], and Dev Brat Sharma Vs. Jagjit Mehta [(1990) Supp. SCC
vitiated in law.
of plots for the banks is not sufficient to meet the needs of the
available for relocation of the banks. The lease rent and other
in the cases of Hari Rao (supra) and Dev Brat Sharma (supra).
the case in hand, has to be seen in light of the Master Plan, the
Regulations.
the industrial development area and the first and foremost step
the Act has been brought to our notice which provides for the
26
Development Authority or, for that matter, even for the courts,
Regulation 2(1)(k) has to take its colour from the use of the
Court, in the case of NDMC & Ors. v. Tanvi Trading and Credit
Private Limited and Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 765], not only took the
would have adverse impact on the law abiders. This Court also
opposed to the objects of the Act and would be ultra vires the
29. The above decision of the Court was given in light of the
manner which will run contrary to the scheme of the Act and
which would defeat the very object of the Act and the
Regulations.
with law and Section 14-A of that Act. Even if the change of
31. Even in the case of ITC Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
under:-
& Ors. [(1995) 5 SCC 762]. In that case, the Plan had provided
of the provisions of the Act and the Plans, having the force of
law. We would hasten to add that even where the requisite
law.
mixed user, where the Master Plan does not so provide, would
being the sine qua non for a final development Plan, as also for
relates to increased Floor Space Index (FSI) did not and could
not bestow any legal right upon the appellant. To put it
Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC 581], this Court did not approve and attach
concessional terms and held that the purpose for which the
Act and the Rules were void and of no effect, being illegal.
Plan.
Plan.
and shall not use it for any purpose other than residential.
use other than residential. The property was rented out to two
45. We may notice that only in two cases i.e. Oriental Bank
of Commerce (Sector 27, Noida) and Vijaya Bank (Sector-19,
sector was granted for a period of five years and three years,
under the orders of the Court dated 3rd March, 2011. As per
42
filed in this Court, it has been stated that even in case of grant
granted and in fact show cause notices have been issued to all
the Master Plan, its primary use is `residential' where plots are
43
further the cause and object of the Act and would not be
law in force.
48. Another important aspect is that the Development
residential sectors.
hospital is being run from the premises in question and had all
the lessee who have tried to explain that letter by stating that
is also denied that any hospital is being run from the premises.
those persons, though they have executed the lease deed with
ground floor was being used as medical clinic. There were four
that practically the entire ground floor and part of the second
show cause notice dated 29th August, 1992 was issued and
48
lessees, who have changed the user contrary to law, are liable
53. The Master Plan and the Zonal plan specify the user as
Authority under law, the Court will intervene and would direct
cum-Lecture Hall and the contention before the Court was that
Haryana & Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC 577], wherein this Court was
as open space under the plan. This Court, while noticing the
the case of Delhi Pradesh Citizen Council Vs. Union of India &
We are not only relying upon the precedents of this Court, but
law and frustrate the very object and purpose of the Master
`residential use'.
the lease deed without any further delay, where it has not
57
in question.
order as to costs.
...................................J.
(Swatanter Kumar)
...................................J.
(Ranjana Prakash Desai)
New Delhi;
December 05, 2011
58
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
VERSUS
- 2 -