LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus DEV RAJ GUPTA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. DEV RAJ GUPTA AND ORS. OCTOBER 23, 1990 [P.B. SAWANT AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Delhi Development Act, 1957: Section 7-Town planning- M aster Plan-Land leased by Government-Conversion of user- Residential to commercial-Application and enquiry-Difference between-Absence of prescribed form-Relevance of- levy of conver- C sion charges-Reckoning of relevant date-Region in which the leased land situated-Declared to be commercial zone-Land user-Whether results in automatic and statutory conversion. The land in this ca~e was leased by the Government to one R in 1931 and a regnlar lease deed was drawn in 1938. It was a perpetnal D lease. The lessee constructed a residential bnilding on the land, and assigned the lease in favour of one L. On the death of L, the interest in the lease devolved on the respondents. Respondent No. 1 sent a letter through his Advocate to the Land & Development Officer, stating that he proposed to construct a multi-storeyed building demolishing the bungalow md demanding to know the charges for conversion of the E land use from residential to commercial purposes. The Land & Develop.. ment Officer replied that the letter was receiving attention. Actually the names of the respondents were mutated in the property register after the exchange of the above letters. However, no application for conver- sion of the land user was made on behalf of the lessees of the land. F Again in 1978 the parties sent a letter to the Land & Development Officer demanding to know the terms for construction of a commercial building on the lease land and the charges to ~ paid for the same. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner sent a reply requesting that a for- mal application he made in the prescribed proforma for permission to construct multi-storeyed commercial building duly signed by all the G co-lessees. In 1980 a reminder was sent to the parties. Only thereafter the parties filed an application in the prescribed form. In 1984, the Government intimated the parties that it was willing to comply. with the request, provided the parties were willing to abide by certain terms and conditions in advance. H The parties made a representation to the Works & Housing Minis- 300 U.0.1. v. D.R. GUPTA 301 ter requesting for ·reconsideration of the terms and conditions. After a good deal of correspondence the Government rejected the representa- tion. Thereafter the parties approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition challenging the terms and conditions imposed by the Government. It was contended that since they applied for permission to convert the user of land on 15.2.1978, they were liable to pay charges calculated with reference to that date only; that no charges for misuse of the land could be levied after 15.2.1978; that no interest could be charged on the alleged additional premium which . was calculated by taking into consideration May 25, 1981 as the base date. Accepting the contentions, the High Court held that there was no need to make any application for conversion after 1962 when the Master Plan was pre- pared by the Delhi Development Authority declaring the region as a commercial zone and that the conversion was automatic and statutory. The High Court held that the Respondents were not obliged to make the payment of conversion charges calculated at rates prevalent in April, 1984 instead of the rates obtaining in February, 1978. It directed the Government to recompute the additional premium and other charges. Aggrieved by the High Court Judgment, the Government prefer- red the present appeal. The same contentions as were raised in the High Court were advanced before this Court, by both the parties. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1. The land has to be used as per the agreement between the contracting parties, and no change of the user can be made contrary to the agreement even if the Master Plan permits such user. The Plan helps the parties to change the user, if the parties mutually agree to do so. It does not permit the occupant to change the user unilaterally. It is not,· therefore; ·correct to say that no permission of the landlord was n~ded to change the user of the land. The High Court is not right in holding that there was an automatic or a statutory conversion of the user of the land because in the Plan the land in question fell in the area reserved for commercial use. The High Court failed to appreciate that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.