STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. versus H.V. HOTELS PVT. LTD. &ANR.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 12-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
v. 
H.V. HOTELS PVT. LTD. &ANR. 
JANUARY 12, 2007 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Urban Development-Auction sale of land for construction thereon-
Surrender of certain extent from the land for widening of road-Jn lieu 
thereof benefit of floor area ratio given to purchaser as 1.0-Subsequently 
floor area ratio extended to 1. 75 by Building Bye-laws-Demand of 
C 
extended floor area ratio by the purchaser-Rejection thereof-
Challenged-Courts below directing the State to give the benefit of 
extended floor area-On appeal, held: The purchaser being the auction 
purchaser was not entitled to the benefit of extended floor area ratio in 
view of Bye-Law 19.8-Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region) 
D 
Building Bye-Laws 2000-Bye-Law 19.8. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
First respondent, purchased a property in auction by the State 
Government for the purpose of construction of a hotel. As per the Sale 
Deed, out of the total extent, an extent of certain area was required to be 
surrendered by the purchaser free of cost for widening of an existing road 
and in lieu of that, purchaser would be given the benefit of the floor area 
ratio calculated on the basis of original plot size. Floor area ratio was given 
as 1.0. Sale deed also stipulated that consequent to any change in Building 
bye-laws framed by the local authorities, if the purchaser got additional 
floor area ratio or any relaxation, State would have no objection, provided 
the same were permissible by the prevailing bye-laws. In the meantime, new 
Building Bye-Laws Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Region Building 
Bye-Laws 2000 were promulgated fixing the floor area ratio as 1.75. State 
rejected the claim of the purchaser relying on bye-law 19.8 which stipulated 
that for the plots sold in auction, parameters would remain the same as 
.>pecified at the time of auction. Respondent challenged the order in Writ 
Petition. Single Judge of High Court allowed the Writ Petition directing 
the State to grant benefit of additional floor area ratio to the purchasers. 
In Writ appeal, order of Single Judge was upheld by Division Bench of High 
Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
868 
-
\ -
; 
-
; 
STATE v.H.V. HOTELS PVT. LTD. 
869 
HELD: 1. It may be true that the Building Bye-Laws of2000 fixed a 
A 
floor area ratio as 1.75 in general, but the same could not be applied in the 
case of the present purchaser ignoring bye-law 19.8 of the bye-laws for the 
plots sold in the auction. Here, the parameters at the time of the auction, 
fixed the floor area ratio as 1.0. The effect of bye-law 19.8 is clearly that 
the relevant date for fixing the parameters will be the date of auction, 
notwithstanding that the new bye-laws might have provided for a higher 
floor area ratio. The effect of bye-law 19.8 cannot get obliterated by the 
principle recognized by this Court that normally the relevant date is the 
date of sanctioning of the plan. Of course, going by that ratio, the bye-
laws applicable may be the bye-laws of 2000. But in cases of plots sold 
B 
by auction, the parameters will remain the same as specified at the time 
C 
of auction. [Paras 9 & 10] (874-A-D, 874-A, B, C] 
2. The purchaser bid the property in auction knowing fully well, the 
conditions of the auction with a view to ~ommercially exploit the site. He 
was aware of the parameters. There is no merit in the plea of estoppel 
sought to be raised. There is also no representation in the sale deed acted 
D 
upon to his detriment by the purchaser on which a plea of estoppel can be 
founded. (Para 13] (875-D-E] 
3. The power of exemption is not to be exercised freely. The power 
to relax a Building Rule, Regulation or requirement is an exception to the 
rule and it is to be used with caution and to justify or condone minimum 
E 
bona fide violations or deviations. Merely because subsequently the bye-
laws have been amended, it does not mean that the parameters should be 
relaxed in favour of the purchaser. That would be clearly an erroneous 
approach to the question of relaxation and assumption of such a power 
would mean the nullification of Building rules themselves and the object 
F 
sought to be achieved by the Building rules and the need to have planned 
development of cities and towns in the interests of posterity. Therefore, 
there is no merit in the plea based on the power to relax contained in the 
amended bye-laws. (Para 14) (875-F-H, 876-A] 
4.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.