2008 (8) TMI 1027 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of the rejection of building plans submitted by the respondents.
2. Applicability and binding nature of the LBZ guidelines dated February 8, 1988.
3. The extent of executive power under Article 73 of the Constitution and its application to the case.
4. Interpretation and application of Sections 41 of the DD Act, 1957, and Sections 235 and 241 of the NDMC Act, 1994.
5. The impact of the Master Plan 2001 and Zonal Development Plan on the building plans submitted by the respondents.
6. The High Court's decision to deem the building plans as sanctioned.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Rejection of Building Plans:
The Supreme Court examined the rejection of the building plans by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and held that the rejection was neither illegal nor without jurisdiction. The rejection was based on the plans being in breach of the LBZ guidelines, which were binding and had the force of law. The Court found that the NDMC Chairperson was correct in refusing to grant sanction as the plans contravened the LBZ guidelines.

2. Applicability and Binding Nature of the LBZ Guidelines:
The Court emphasized that the LBZ guidelines dated February 8, 1988, were binding and had statutory force after their incorporation into the Master Plan 2001. These guidelines were issued to maintain the low-density character and green cover of the Lutyens' Bungalow Zone (LBZ). The guidelines were reiterated and enforced through various communications from the Central Government, making them mandatory for any development in the LBZ.

3. The Extent of Executive Power under Article 73:
The Court clarified that under Article 73 of the Constitution, the executive power of the Union extends to matters where Parliament has the power to make laws. The LBZ guidelines, issued under the executive power, were valid and binding as they were aimed at the planned development of Delhi. The guidelines were not mere administrative instructions but had the force of law.

4. Interpretation and Application of Sections 41 of the DD Act and Sections 235 and 241 of the NDMC Act:
The Court analyzed Sections 41 of the DD Act and Sections 235 and 241 of the NDMC Act, concluding that the directions issued by the Central Government under these sections were binding on the NDMC. Section 235, with its non-obstante clause, required the Chairperson to act under the general superintendence, direction, and control of the Central Government, thus making the LBZ guidelines mandatory.

5. Impact of the Master Plan 2001 and Zonal Development Plan:
The Master Plan 2001 and the Zonal Development Plan, which included the LBZ guidelines, were binding and had legal sanction. The Court noted that any building plan contrary to these plans could not be sanctioned. The respondents' building plans, which proposed a two and a half storey building with 15 dwelling units, were found to be non-compliant with the LBZ guidelines and the Master Plan.

6. High Court's Decision to Deem the Building Plans as Sanctioned:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in deeming the building plans as sanctioned. The High Court's direction to the NDMC to return the plans with an endorsement of "sanctioned" was against the statutory mandate and the weight of evidence. The Court held that the plans could not be deemed sanctioned as they were contrary to the LBZ guidelines and the Master Plan.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, clarifying that the respondents could submit new building plans in accordance with the LBZ guidelines dated February 8, 1988, and May 9, 1997. The appropriate authority was directed to pass orders on such plans within two months. The appeals were allowed, and no order as to costs was made.