GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. versus DELHI AUTO AND GENERAL FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 31-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. 
l'. 
DELHI AUTO AND GENERAL FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. 
MARCH 31, 1994 
B 
(J.S. VERMA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.) 
U.P. Urban Planning and Developmem Act, 1971-Section 57-Under 
the said prot·ision, Atttho1ity is en1po1vered to nzake bye- laivs but only after 
getting previous approval of the State Govt.-Deemed previous approval of 
C such bye-laws-If the Auth01ity choses to follow celtain procedures which 
col1'e.1ponds to draft bye-laws awaiting approval, do they become bye-laws 
framed under Sec. 57 of the Act?-He/d No. 
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1971-National Capital 
Region Planning Board Act, 1985 Ss. 13 & 15- Ss. 27 and 21)--(;hange of 
D Land use from recreational to residential and again from residential to 
recreational--Pennission sought to develop and constn1ct on Land refused by 
the Authority-Validity of 
E 
F 
G 
Administrative Law-Legitimate expectation-It is not meant to confer 
an independent legally enforceable right. 
The master plan prepared in 1986 under U.P. Urban Planning and 
Development Act, 1973 showed certain lands in certian areas for use for 
recreational purposes. This area indicated for recreational use in the 
master plan included certain lands of two private colonisers namely, Delhi 
Auto and Maha Maya who applied to the Ghaziabad Development 
Authority for permission to develop and construct on their lands accord-
ing to their layout plans. The plan submitted by Maha Maya was granted 
conditional permission on 22.6.91/11.7.91. The application of the Delhi 
Auto for grant of permission was submitted only on 20.7.91. In the mean-
time the Govt. of U.P. had amended the land use of the area from 
recreational to residential in the master plan but the National Capital 
Region Planning Board constituted under N.C.R.P. Board Act, 1985, 
declined to approve the said change of land use by the State Govt. Accord-
ingly the State Govt. reviewed its earlier order and by order dated 24.9.91 
directed the Authority not to sanction any layout plan of any person and 
H also restored the original land use i.e. "recreational" in the master plan. 
248 
•
• 
-
G.DA v. DELHIAUTOANDGEN.FINANCELTD. 
249 
In these circumstances the permission was refused to Delhi Auto and the A 
conditional permission already granted in case of Maha Maya was 
revoked. 
The two colonisers filed seperate writ petitions in the High Court 
challenging the refusal of permissions sought by them under Sec. 15 of 
the Act. The High Court allowed their Writ petitions by holding inter alia B 
that as per the draft bye-law followed by the Authority, their plans stood 
sanctioned eveu if such bye-laws had not been approved by the State Govt. 
because Sec. 57 of the UP Act contemplates deemed approval. It was also 
held that legitimate expectations of the petitioners cannot be defeated by 
an arbitrary amendment in the master plan under Sec. 13 of the UP Act. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. Sec. 57 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development 
Act, 1973 (U.P.Act.) empowers the Authority to make bye-laws only with 
c 
the previous approval of the State Govt. Merely because the Authority D 
choses to follow certain procedures which correspond 57 of the Act, in the 
absence of approved bye-laws, the question of deemed sanction under the 
bye-laws does not arise. [254-E-F] 
2. The change of land use of the area in the master plan from 
recreational to residential did not give rise to a legitimate expectation in E 
a private coloniser owning land in that area that he could develop a 
housing colony merely because he had submitted plan for approval when 
grant of permission under Sec. 15 of the U.P. Act is not automatic, more 
so in view of Sec. 13 which permits change of land use in the master plan. 
[pp. 255-G-H; 256-A] 
3. The plea of the legitimate expectation relates to procedural fairness 
in decision making and forms a part of the rule of non-arbitrariness, and it 
is not meant to confer an.independent right enforceable by itself. [255-C] 
FCJ v. Kumdhenu Cattle Feed lndusllies, [1993] 1 SCC 71, relied on. 
4. Sec. 27 read ,.;th Sec. 29 of the National Capital Region Planning 
Board Act, 1985 (NCR Act) totally excludes the land use of that area for 
any purpose inconsistent with that shown in the published regional plan. 
F 
G 
The permissible land use according to the published regional plan in 
operation throughout the area in question was only recreational and not 
reside
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.