ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND ANR. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 28-05-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. 
MAY 28, 1992 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND R. M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
Delhi Development Act, 1947-Sections 9(2), 41-Legis/ative ob-
ject-Master plan-Restriction 011 high rise constroction by Central Govern-
ment-Legality of. 
De/Iii Development Act, 1947-Sections 41 read with Bye-Laws 6. 7.4, 
6.1 of the Building Bye-Laws, 1983 of the Delhi Development Authority-Re-
qu irem ent unde,.-.Deemed sanction-When arises-Compounding 
fee-Charging of interest-Whether arises. 
A 
B 
c 
The auction of leasehold rights on the plot in question was in favour D 
of the appellants for Rs. 8.13 crores on 19.1.1981. The appellant paid 25% 
of the auction amount on the fail of the hammer. According to the terms 
and conditions of the auction the balance 75% was required to be paid 
within 90 days of the formal acceptance of the bid which was made on 
18.2.1982. 
E 
The appellants did not pay the balance amount and took a stand 
that there was some confusion as to whether it was D.D.A. or the Union of 
India, which was the owner of the plot in question. The appellant also 
sought for time for payment on the ground that money market in relation 
to the land property had gone down tremendously. 
F 
On 14.17.1984 revised terms were communicated by the D.D.A. to the 
appellants. The essential terms of the revised agreement were that 25% of 
the bid amount was to be paid within 90 days of the issuance of the letter 
of revised terms. 50% of the remaining bid amount along with interest for G 
delayed payments was to be paid in five equal half yearly instalments which 
included the interest calculated at 18% per annum. 
The appellants submitted a bank guarantee dated 15th July, 1985 in 
favour of the D.D.A. The fresh schedule of instalments was specifically 
mentioned in the bank guarantee. Thereafter on 23.7.1985, a formal deed H 
465 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992] 3 S.C.R. 
A of agreement was executed between the parties and poss~ssion over the 
plot was given on 25.7.1985. The building plans were submitted by the 
appellant on 12.8.1985. The D.D.A. forwarded building plans to the Delhi 
Urban Arts Commission (DUAC). The DUAC by its letter dated 18.9.1985 
sought certain clarifications from the appellant within ten days and again 
B sent a reminder on 24.9.1985, but the appellant did not send any reply. 
The appellant sent a notice for commencement of construction on 
15.10.1985 claiming that they having not received any order of rejection of 
the plans within sixty days as contemplated under bye-law No.6.7.4 had 
become entitled to deemed sanction; that the first instalment, according to 
C the re-schedule of instalments was payable on 15.11.1985 but even before 
that they had paid Rs. 47 lakhs on 8.10.1985 itself. 
Thereafter the Government of India by an office memorandum dated 
17.10.1985 decided to stop construction of multi-storeyed buildings 'in New 
Delhi including areas under D.D.A. and Municipal Corporation, with 
D immediate effect till the Master plan for 2001 was finalised. 
The DUAC then returne«' t.~he proposals of the building plans of the 
appellants to the D.D.A. on "J.11.1985. The D.D.A. by its letter dated 
9.12.1985 informed the appellants regarding the decision of the Govern-
E ment of India and returned the building plans and it was directed not to 
process the sanction further till further directions were received from the 
Government of India. 
F 
A notice to stop the construction immediately till the plans were 
sanctioned finally by the D.D.A. was given to the appellants on 17.1.1986. 
On 25.3.86 the D.D.A. informed the appellants that their plans had 
been rejected as the same had not been approved by the DUAC. 
The appellants filed writ petition challenging the notice issued by the 
D.D.A. of stopping the construction work and also the ban introduced by 
G the Government of India. 
The High Court on 17.9.1986 passed an interim order permitting the 
appellants to continue the construction work at their own risk. 
On 15.10.1987 the bank guarantee was invoked by the D.D.A. for a 
H sum of Rs.8 crores approximately. 
y 
-
-
ANSAL PROPERTIES v. D.D.A 
467 
The appellants filed a seeond writ petition challenging the encash-
A 
ment of the bank guarantee by D.D.A. and obtained an interim-order on 
28.10.1987 restraining the D.D.A. from encashing the bank guarantee. 
The ban imposed by the Central Government was lifted on 8.2.1988. 
The appel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.