9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue, which decided that for three category of bodies : (i) Educational, (ii) Health Care and (iii) Social Welfare, the additional charges need to be withdrawn. The Central Government accepted the same. The notification dated July 17, 2002 was promulgated. The object of the legislation is to confer a benefit without taking away anybody's vested right and without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally. To confer a benefit is the express object of the legislation. The presumption thus would be that the intent was to give a retrospective effect. We have already reasoned above that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated July 20, 2012, though not so expressly stating, meaningfully read, has treated the notification dated July 17, 2002 as retrospective and thus the respondent in LPA No.107/2014 and the writ petitioners in the three captioned writ petitions would be entitled to succeed on three distinct and independent reasons. Firstly, parity with the writ petitioners of the various writ petitions which were allowed on July 22, 2012, which decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Secondly, on the doctrine of fairness a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No.s.O.3432(E) dated 10th October, 2008: S.No. Item Recommendation of the Ministry Rates worked out on the basis of the recommendations of the Ministry (Rates in Rs. per sqm) 6. (g) Additional FAR charges for institutional Plots i.e. including hospital plots. @ 50% of the undated zonal market rate of institutional properties for those disposed by auction as well as for those properties which were allotted to private parties. This is not applicable to those institutions which were allotted land @ ₹ 1/- for whom no such charges is recommended. South Dwarka ₹ 29525/- North, East, West Rohini ₹ 13008/- Narela ₹ 9691/- This is not applicable to those institutions which were allotted land @ ₹ 1/- for whom no such charge is recommended. 3. A perusal of the notification dated December 23, 2008 would evidence that concerning institutional plots in South Delhi and Dwarka, for the additional FAR the owner of the land was required to pay additional premium/charge @ ₹ 29,525/- per sq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent of LPA No.107/2014 deposited ₹ 3,02,91,764/- (Rupees Three Crores Two Lacs Ninety One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Four only). The petitioner of W.P.(C) No.7921/2012 deposited ₹ 1,46,48,700/-(Rupees One Crore Forty Six Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand and Seven Hundred only). The petitioner of W.P.(C) No.1327/2013 deposited ₹ 43,85,931/- (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty One only) and the petitioner of W.P.(C) 915/2014 deposited ₹ 2,86,54,308/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Six Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Eight only). 6. The committee constituted took a decision that those bodies which were having an income-tax exemption and were engaged in the activity of education, health care and social welfare should be exempted from paying any additional charges to avail the benefit of additional FAR. The recommendation of the committee was sent for approval to the Central Government and upon approval being granted a notification dated July 17, 2012 was promulgated which reads as under:- DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LAND COSTING WING VIKAS SADAN INA NEW DELHI NOTIFICATION Subject:- Exempting addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l societies/Health care and Social welfare societies having income tax exemption. As such no additional FAR charges would therefore be recoverable from the present petitioners. If any of the petitioners have made deposits in this Court pursuant to any order passed by this court the same shall be returned to the respective petitioners. In case of any Bank Guarantees that may have been furnished on account of directions of this Court in view of the additional FAR charges, the petitioners concerned would also be entitled to have the same revoked. In view of the fact that now no FAR charges are to be recovered from the Educational societies/Health care and Social welfare societies having income tax exemption, any action which may have been made conditional on the payment of the additional FAR charges would now not have the said condition. In other words, the non-payment of the FAR charges will not come in the way of the petitioners to proceed with their release of sanctioned building plans, occupancy certificates, extension of time and NOCs etc. If the other conditions prescribed in law are fulfilled. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. The respondent in the intra-court appeal and the writ petitioners in the three captioned writ petitions had a two-fold point to urge. The first was that the doctrine of fairness required it to be held that the respondent in the intra-court appeal and the three writ petitioners should be entitled to the same benefit which enured to the writ petitioners of the batch of writ petitions which were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court as per the order dated July 20, 2012. It was urged that merely because the said writ petitioners had filed a writ petition challenging the notification dated December 23, 2008 but the respondent of the intra-court appeal and the three writ petitioners had not burdened this Court with litigation and had paid the additional charges under protest and with an express stipulation that the payment would be subject to a decision either taken by the committee or by this Court, made no difference in the status of the writ petitioners who had succeeded in this Court and they. The second contention urged was that the notification dated July 17, 2002 amending the notification dated December 23, 2008 was retrospective because it conferred a benefit. 13. Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ange the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. 17. To put in layman's language, the basis of the principle against retrospectivity is no more than 'simple fairness', which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in the decision L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. [1994] 1 AC 486. 18. Thus, the rule against presumption against a retrospective operation : It is a fundamental rule of law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. Dogmatically framed, the rule is no more than a presumption, and thus could be displaced by out weighing factors. 19. Thus, legislations which modify accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... look into the issue, which decided that for three category of bodies : (i) Educational, (ii) Health Care and (iii) Social Welfare, the additional charges need to be withdrawn. The Central Government accepted the same. The notification dated July 17, 2002 was promulgated. The object of the legislation is to confer a benefit without taking away anybody's vested right and without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally. To confer a benefit is the express object of the legislation. The presumption thus would be that the intent was to give a retrospective effect. 25. We have already reasoned above that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated July 20, 2012, though not so expressly stating, meaningfully read, has treated the notification dated July 17, 2002 as retrospective and thus the respondent in LPA No.107/2014 and the writ petitioners in the three captioned writ petitions would be entitled to succeed on three distinct and independent reasons. Firstly, parity with the writ petitioners of the various writ petitions which were allowed on July 22, 2012, which decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Secondly, on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
