Union Of India Ministry Of Urban Development And Poverty Alleviation Through Its Secretary vs. Ashoka Estate Pvt. Ltd

TTEM NO. $16$

COURT NO.13

SECTION XIV

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31726/2012

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-01-2012 in WP(C) No. 6742/2000 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi]

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

M/S. ASHOKA ESTATE PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Respondent(s)

IA No. 140907/2018 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 140909/2018 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 6/2015 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 148124/2018 - WITHDRAWAL OF CASE / APPLICATION

WITH

SLP(C) No. $35120/2016$ (XIV) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1/2016 SLP(C) No. $34727/2016$ (XIV) SLP(C) No. $34729/2016$ (XIV) $SLP(C)$ No. 34730/2016 (XIV) $SLP(C)$ No. 34728/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. $35121/2016$ (XIV) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1/2016

Date: 04-03-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR

Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Not Verified Mr. Shantnu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kr. Chaurasia, Adv. Sr Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiv Chopra, Adv. Mr. Sharad Kumar Puri, Adv. Mr. Sachin Dubey, Adv. Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR

Ms. Pavitra Kaur, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Singh, AOR Mr. Shiven Asthana, Adv. Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Ms. Samridhi, Adv. Mr. Rahul Narayan, AOR Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Dr. Harish Uppal, Adv. Mr. Tileshwar Prasad, Adv. Mr. Ankit Vashisht, Adv. Mr. Nishant Anshul, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR Ms. Pavitra Kaur, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Singh, AOR Mr. Shiven Asthana, Adv. Mr. Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nina Gupta, Adv. Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gupta, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. Since the issues involved in all the captioned Petitions are same and the challenge is also to the self-same Judgment and order passed by the High Court those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.

3. These petitions arise from the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.6742/2000 and allied petitions decided on 23-1-2012 by which the High Court allowed writ petitions in the following terms:-

51. For the aforesaid reasons by following the judgment of Daya Wanti Punj (supra) we direct the respondents to raise demand for change of user on the basis of the rates of Rs.600/- per sq. yds.

52. The present writ petition is allowed and we quash the communication dated 10.04.1999 and the communication dated 31.07.2000 and the communications dated 04.10.2000 as filed in present writ petition as annexure P-12, 14, 15 and 16 respectively. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to raise their fresh demand for change of the user the property No.24, Barakhamba Road, New Dell accordance with principles laid down by the Division Bench judgment dated 19.05.1998 and the finding arrived by us.

53. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.6742/2010, in view of the order dated 20.11.2000 had deposited Rs. 40 lacs by order dated 10.11.2000. The said amount would be adjusted against the proposed fresh demand to be raised by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 54. The connected Writ Petitions being W.P.(C) Nos. 6671/2000, 7636/2000, 7649/2000, 7717/2000, 7718/2000,

7747/2000 and 1082/2001 which are having the same prayers are also disposed of with these directions.

55. All the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs".

4. We quote the relevant observations in `Daya Wanti Punj versus N.D.M.C."

18. This letter shows that or the, "crucial date" for calculating charges in respect of permanent change of purpose "the land values prescribed by the Government as prevailing at the time of according permission" would normally be the basis. What is the "crucial date" is the first question? What are the "land values" prevalent on the "crucial date" is the second question? On the correspondence, we have come to the conclusion that the "crucial date" for according permission ought to be 30th December 1970. This was the first application for permission for all practical purposes. This the Government do not dispute. It is their own stand. Now, the "land values" prevailing in 1970 were Rs. 600 per sq. yards, according to the Government's own prescribed rates. We do not see how in view of this admitted stand the Government can ask for payment on the basis of Rs. 1500 per sq. yard. They rely for this purposes on a letter dated 30th July 1979 which is said to be a clarification of the Government policy formulated on 21st June 1979. This letter reads:

"Το 30-7-79

The Land & Development Officer, New Delhi.

Sub: Rates to be applied for pending applications received prior to 1972 for conversion to multistoreyed commercial and Group Housing, in Delhi.

Sir, This question of the rate to be applied for pending applications received prior to 1972 for conversion to multi-storeyed commercial and Group Housing in Delhi has been considered in consultation with Finance Division. Keeping in view the fact that the land rates during the years immediately prior to 1972 were not appreciably lower than the rates fixed for 1972 it has been decided that the rates determined for the year 1972 vide this Ministry's letter No. 1-22011/1/75-1II(ii) dated 21st June,

Page: 582

1979 may be applied for the pre-1979 cases.

This has the approval of the Finance Division (Lands Unit) vide their U.O. No. 5 (13) FD (L)/79/379 dated 26-7-1979.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(V.S.Rathan) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India."

19. On the strength of this letter, the L. & D.O. says that he is bound by the instructions of the Government to charge Rs. 1500 per sq. yard because even though it is a "pre-1972 case" it has been decided by the Government that the rates determined for the year 1972 have to be applied. We cannot see eye to eye with the Government. Nor do we see the logic of this, letter. The stand of the Government is legally indefensible. A man who applies for permission in 1970 cannot be asked to pay on the basis of the land values prescribed by the Government for 1972. This is not in dispute that for 1970 the rate would be Rs. 600 per sq. yard. That rate was prevalent from 1962 to 14th January 1972. It is a fallacious reasoning to say that the land rates prior to 1972 were not "appreciably lower" than the rates fixed for 1972. There is a world of difference between land values of Rs. 600 per sq. yard 1970 and Rs. 1500 per sq. yard for 1972. This is an area of interplay of market forces.

20. From the counter-affidavit of the Government, it appears that permission was given on the basis of the land rates of Rs. 600 per sq. yard to three lessees, namely, (1) Life Insurance Corporation regarding 25, Curzon Road, (2) Himalaya House regarding 23, Curzon Road and (3) (3) Hindustan Times regarding 18.20, Curzon Road. All the three lessees had applied to the Government during the period 1966 to 1968. The terms were given to them between 1968 and 1971 and they were informed that the lessor was willing to give his consent for change of purpose from residential to commercial on the basis of the land value of Rs. 600 per sq. yard. There cannot be a different yard stick for the petitioners. Their case is also covered by that block of years which covered the period from 1966 to 14-1-72. They are entitled to be treated on the same footing as those three lessees, namely, L.I.C., Himalaya House, and Hindustan Times, were treated. We see no justification for adopting the basis of the land value of Rs. 1500 per sq. yard which is the basis of the Government's demand. Our conclusion is that 1970 is "that point of time", to use an expression of the Government policy dated 21st June, 1979, on the basis of which market value of the land should be ascertained for the purposes of giving permission for permanent change of purpose.

21. There remain the question of interest. The Government is also demanding interest from 1970 till today. This claim is wholly indefensible. What is the justification for charging interest we have not been told. On the facts of this case we have come to the conclusion that interest cannot be demanded. Even to the letter dated 30th December 1970 which the Government accepts as the first proper application they did not make any reply. They never quoted the price which the lessor was willing to charge for according permission for change of purpose. Silence of the lessor does not entitle him to interest. Only in 1982 under our orders dated 12th February 1982 the Government stated that they were willing to accord permission for permanent change of purpose on the basis of land values of Rs. 1500 per sq. yards. In our judgment there is no case for interest. There is neither agreement, express or implied, nor a statutory provision to justify a claim for interest. (Bengal Nagpur Railway v. Battanji

5. We take notice of the fact that while allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the original petitioners i.e. the respondents – herein the High Court has reserved the liberty in favour of the petitioners – herein to raise fresh demand for change of the user of the properties in question in accordance with the principles laid down by the High Court in its decision in Daya Wanti Punj (supra).

5

6. In such circumstances, referred to above, we see no good reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the High Court.

7. All the petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.

8. All other pending applications including the applications for substitution and intervention also stand disposed of.

(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)