2007 (1) TMI 628 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Building Bye-Laws
2. Necessary Parties in the Writ Petition
3. Estoppel and Equitable Relief
4. Power to Relax Building Rules

Summary:

1. Applicability of Building Bye-Laws:
The auction for the plot took place on 14.2.1996, and the sale deed stipulated a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0. The purchaser later sought to increase the FAR to 1.75 based on the new Building bye-laws of 2000. However, bye-law 19.8 of the Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region) Building Bye-Laws of 2000 specified that "for the plots sold in the auction, parameters will remain the same as specified at the time of auction." The Supreme Court held that the relevant date for fixing the parameters is the date of auction, and the FAR of 1.0 as specified at that time must prevail.

2. Necessary Parties in the Writ Petition:
The High Court had granted relief to the purchaser without the Jaipur Development Authority being a party to the writ petition. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's direction fettered the statutory power of the Jaipur Development Authority and compelled it to sanction a particular FAR without examining the claim in light of the bye-laws of 2000. The Court held that the Jaipur Development Authority was a necessary party.

3. Estoppel and Equitable Relief:
The purchaser argued that the State was estopped from denying the increased FAR based on the sale deed's clause. The Supreme Court found no merit in the plea of estoppel, stating that the sale deed did not prevent the State from relying on bye-law 19.8. The Court emphasized that Building Regulations are in public interest and the plea based on alleged equity could not be accepted.

4. Power to Relax Building Rules:
The High Court had relied on bye-law 19.5, which permits relaxation of conditions. The Supreme Court clarified that the power to relax is an exception and must be used with caution. The Court held that the High Court's reasoning was unsustainable and that the parameters at the time of auction should prevail.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the Division Bench and the Single Judge, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents. The Court directed the parties to bear their respective costs.