1985 (10) TMI 275 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease.
2. Validity of the notice for demolition under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
3. Allegations of mala fide and political motivation.
4. Authority of the Lt. Governor of Delhi.
5. Compliance with the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plans.
6. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
7. Determination of conversion charges.

Summary:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Notice of Re-entry:
The petitioners challenged the notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease issued by the Engineer Officer, Land & Development Office, dated March 10, 1980, under cl.5 of the lease-deed for alleged breaches of cls. 2(5) and 2(14). The Court held that the notice was invalid due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of cl.6 of the lease-deed. The notice was not merely exploratory but intended to forfeit the lease, which required due process of law.

2. Validity of the Notice for Demolition:
The petitioners also challenged the notice dated March 1, 1980, issued by the Zonal Engineer (Building), Municipal Corporation, under ss. 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, for alleged unauthorized construction. The Court found that the construction was sanctioned by the Delhi Development Authority and in conformity with the Master Plan, making the notice invalid.

3. Allegations of Mala Fide and Political Motivation:
The petitioners alleged that the notices were issued with mala fide intent and were politically motivated. The Court found that the Lt. Governor acted with undue zeal and the notices were issued in bad faith, constituting misuse of power. The Court held that the actions were arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

4. Authority of the Lt. Governor of Delhi:
The Court examined whether the Lt. Governor was the successor of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi and had the authority to administer the lease. It was held that the Lt. Governor could not usurp the functions of the Union of India in relation to the lease, as there was no notification under Art. 239(1) vesting such power in the Lt. Governor.

5. Compliance with the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plans:
The Court found that the construction of the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 was in conformity with the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan for D-II area. The Master Plan did not prescribe any FAR for the press enclave, and the Zonal Development Plan permitted an FAR of 400 for the area.

6. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The Court held that the permission granted by the then Minister for Works & Housing for the construction of the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 was binding on the successor government. The doctrine of promissory estoppel precluded the Union of India from questioning the validity of the permission granted.

7. Determination of Conversion Charges:
The Court noted that the determination of conversion charges required technical expertise and could not be adjudicated in the present proceedings. It was suggested that the Union of India could either legislate to provide a forum for adjudication or file a suit for recovery of conversion charges. The Court restrained the respondents from taking any steps for termination of the lease until the final determination of the conversion charges.

Conclusion:
The petitions were allowed, and the impugned notices were quashed. The Court declared that the construction of the new Express Building did not constitute a breach of the lease-deed and directed the respondents to refrain from enforcing the notices. The Union of India was directed to recover conversion charges through appropriate legal means.