1985 (10) TMI 280 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease.
2. Validity of the notice for demolition of the Express Buildings.
3. Allegations of mala fide and politically motivated actions.
4. Authority of the Lt. Governor in administering Union properties.
5. Compliance with the Master Plan, Zonal Development Plans, and municipal bye-laws.
6. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
7. Validity of the Engineer Officer's notice of re-entry.
8. Quantum of conversion charges and their determination.

Summary:

1. Constitutional Validity of Notice of Re-entry:
The petitioners challenged the notice of re-entry dated March 10, 1980, issued by the Engineer Officer, Land & Development Office, under cl.5 of the lease-deed, alleging breaches of cls. 2(5) and 2(14). The Supreme Court held that the notice was invalid due to non-compliance with cl.6 of the lease-deed. The Court emphasized that the lessor must follow due process of law, which implies filing a suit for enforcement of the right of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease.

2. Validity of Notice for Demolition:
The notice dated March 1, 1980, issued by the Zonal Engineer (Building), Municipal Corporation, to demolish the new Express Building under ss. 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, was challenged. The Court found that the construction was sanctioned by the Delhi Development Authority and in conformity with the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan. The notice was deemed arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

3. Allegations of Mala Fide and Politically Motivated Actions:
The petitioners alleged that the impugned notices were issued with mala fide intent and political vendetta. The Court noted the sequence of events and the actions of the Lt. Governor, which indicated a misuse of power. The Court held that the notices were issued in bad faith and were politically motivated, thus invalidating them.

4. Authority of the Lt. Governor:
The Court examined whether the Lt. Governor was the successor of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi and had the authority to administer Union properties. It was held that the Lt. Governor could not usurp the functions of the Union of India, Ministry of Works & Housing, in relation to the lease. The administrative control over the Land & Development Office was transferred to the Ministry of Works & Housing in 1959, and the Lt. Governor had no authority in this matter.

5. Compliance with Master Plan, Zonal Development Plans, and Municipal Bye-laws:
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 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 commercial areas. The construction did not violate any municipal bye-laws.

6. Application of Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The Court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, holding that the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. acted upon the permission granted by the then Minister for Works & Housing. The Union of India was precluded from contending that the permission was illegal or invalid. The successor government was bound by the decisions of the previous government.

7. Validity of Engineer Officer's Notice of Re-entry:
The notice of re-entry issued by the Engineer Officer on March 10, 1980, was found to be invalid as it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of cl.6 of the lease-deed. The Court emphasized that the lessor must follow due process of law, which involves filing a suit for enforcement of the right of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease.

8. Quantum of Conversion Charges:
The Court discussed the quantum of conversion charges payable by the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. for the new Express Building. It was noted that the determination of conversion charges involves technical expertise and should be adjudicated by an impartial tribunal or through a duly constituted suit. The Court restrained the Union of India from taking any steps for termination of the lease for non-payment of conversion charges until the final determination of the amount.

← Previous Next →