Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6030 OF 2019
(arising out of SLP(C)No.7710 of 2019)
THE MAYOR JAIPUR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION & ANR. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THAKUR SHIV RAJ SINGH & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
The Jaipur Municipal Corporation has filed this
appeal challenging the Division Bench judgment of
Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur dated
12.01.2018 by which the Special Appeal filed by the
respondents questioning the judgment of learned
Single Judge has been allowed and the appellants have
been directed to refund the conversion charges
deposited by the respondents along with six percent
interest.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SANJAY KUMAR
Date: 2019.08.05
17:05:48 IST
Reason:
2. Brief facts of case giving rise to this appeal
are:
2
Lt. Col. Late Harnath Singh, the predecessor-in-
interest of the respondents by registered sale deed
dated 16.04.1959 had purchased the property in
question known as ‘Lal Niwas’ from His Highness Sawai
Man Singh of Jaipur. Lt.Col. Late Harnath Singh died
on 08.01.1997 after which the respondents became
owner of the property. The respondents, with intent
to develop by constructing a multi-storeyed building,
commercial-cum-residential complex in the area of
8080.14 square meter, made an application to
Corporation for conversion of land use as condition
precedent for sanction of building plan for
constructing commercial-cum-residential complex. The
Corporation issued an order dated 22.02.2003
directing the respondents to deposit an amount of
Rs.1,01,04,672/- towards the conversion charges. The
respondents reserving their rights deposited the
amount through pay order dated 20.03.2003. An order
dated 06.05.2003 was passed by the Corporation
allowing the conversion of the land use of the
aforesaid land. The building plan was thereafter
approved by the Corporation on 08.01.2004. The
3
respondents issued notice dated 28.04.2004 to the
Corporation calling upon the appellants to pay a sum
of Rs.1,13,86,703/- along with interest. The
respondents filed a Writ Petition No.4783 of 2004 in
the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench praying
for following reliefs:
“(i) By an appropriate writ, order and
direction impugned orders dated
22.02.2003 (Annexure.2), order dated
01.04.1003 (Annexure.4), 19.11.2003
& 20.12.2003 (Annexure.7) passed by
the respondents No.2 & 3 may kindly
be quashed and set aside.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or
direction the respondents may be
directed to refund the amount of
Rupees 1,01,04,672/- charged/
extracted by the respondents towards
conversion charges of the land in
question and an amount of Rupees
6,31,542/- and Rupees 6,59,961/-
charged by the respondents towards
Shahari Jama Bandi & interest
thereon, thus totalling Rs.
1,13,96,175/- from the petitioners
along with interest @ 18% p.a.
thereon as damages for unnecessarily
withholding the aforesaid amount
w.e.f. date of deposit to the date
of payment. The respondents may
further be directed to refund the
total amount as prayed hereinabove
to the petitioners in the proportion
viz. 30% to Thakur Shiv Raj Singh
rd
(Petitioner No.1) and 1/3 of the
remaining to each of the Petitioners
No.2 to 4.
4
(iii) Cost of litigation be awarded to the
petitioners.
(iv) Any other order(s) as this Hon’ble
High Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of
the present writ petition be also
passed in favour of the humble
petitioners and against the
respondents.”
3. In the writ petition, the Corporation filed its
reply. The Corporation resisted the writ petition. A
learned Single Judge of the High Court vide its
judgment dated 04.07.2006 dismissed the writ
petition. Aggrieved against the judgment of learned
Single Judge, Special Appeal was filed by the
respondent before the Division Bench. The Division
Bench of the High Court vide its impugned judgment
dated 12.01.2018 allowed the Special Appeal and
directed for refund of the amount of Rs.1,01,04,672/-
with interest. The Corporation aggrieved by the
judgment of the Division Bench has come up in this
appeal.
5
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants
as well as learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
it is the respondents who had submitted an
application for paying conversion charges to enable
sanction of building plan of commercial-cum-
residential complex in the premises in question. The
Corporation had directed for deposit of conversion
charges which were deposited by the respondents. The
respondents are not entitled to claim any refund.
They have themselves deposited the conversion
charges. It is submitted that in view of the land use
of plot in the Master Plan, which was in force at the
time when the application was moved by the
respondents, i.e., ‘residential’, it was obligatory
for the respondents to seek permission for using the
land for commercial purpose as required by Section
173-A of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 as
amended by Act 19 of 1999. It is submitted that the
respondents’ map for sanction of building plan for
6
commercial-cum-residential plot could not have been
sanctioned unless the conversion of land use was
permitted and the amount demanded by the Corporation
from respondents was the amount of conversion charges
of land use. It is submitted that the Division Bench
without considering the relevant issues and
provisions of Section 173-A allowed the appeal. The
Division Bench erred in directing for refund of the
amount deposited by the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the
submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants
contends that the respondents were forced to deposit
the amount of Rs.1,01,04,672/- by the Corporation.
The respondents deposited the amount under protest.
It is submitted that from the date property was
purchased in the year 1959, the property is being
used for commercial purposes. It is submitted that a
Company M/s. Hindustan Salts Limited was using the
premises for commercial purpose till M/s. Hindustan
Salts Limited handed over the premises in the year
1996 to Lt. Col. Late Harnath Singh. When the
7
premises was being used for commercial purpose since
before the date when building plan for constructing
commercial-cum-residential complex was made, there
was no occasion for payment of any conversion
charges. It is submitted that in Master Plan the land
use of plot in question as on date as well as at the
relevant time was commercial. It is submitted that
the respondents were not liable to pay any conversion
charges and the Corporation, having realised the
conversion charges illegally and arbitrary from the
respondents, is obliged to refund the amount. It is
submitted that the learned Single Judge also has
returned a finding that the land in question is being
used for commercial purposes.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
8. Before we enter into the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants, it is relevant to
notice the relevant provisions of Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 1959 pertaining to land user.
8
Section 173-A is provision dealing with the power of
the State Government to allow the change of use of
land. Section 173-A was amended by Rajasthan
Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is useful to
notice the provisions of Section 173-A before the
amendment and after the amendment which are as
follows:
“Section 173-A of the Act, prior to its
amendment, reads as follows:
“ 173-A. Power of the State
Government to allow change in the use
of land.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, where any land has been
allotted or sold to any person by a
municipality or the State Government
subject to the condition of
restraining its use for a particular
purpose, the State Government may, if
it is satisfied so to do in public
interest, allow the owner or holder
of such land to use it for any other
purpose other than the purpose for
which it was originally allotted or
sold, on payment of such conversion
charges as may be prescribed:
Provided that the rates of
conversion charges may be different
for different areas and for different
purposes.
(2) The conversion charges so
realized shall be credited to the
Consolidated Fund of the State or to
the fund of the Municipality as may
9
be determined by the State
Government.
(3) Such charges shall be the
first charge on the interest of the
person liable in the land the use of
which has been changed and shall be
recoverable as arrears of land
revenue.”
Section 173-A of the Act as amended by
the Amending Act No. 19 of 1999 reads as
follows:
“ Section 173-A - Restriction on
change of use of land and power of
the State Government to allow change
of use of land .-(1) No person shall
use or permit the use of any land
situated in any municipal area, for
the purpose other than that for which
such land was originally allotted or
sold to any person by the State
Government, any municipality, and
other local authority or any other
body or authority in accordance with
any law for the time being in force
or, otherwise than as specified under
a Master Plan, wherever it is in
operation.
(2) In the case of any land not
allotted or sold as aforesaid and not
covered under sub-section (1), no
person shall use or permit the use of
any such land situated in a municipal
area for the purpose other than that
for which such land use was or is
permissible, in accordance with the
Master Plan, wherever it is in
operation, or under any law for the
time being in force.
10
(3) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2), the State Government or
any authority authorised by it by
notification in the Official Gazette,
may allow the owner or holder of any
such land to have change of use
thereof, if it is satisfied so to do
in public interest, on payment of
conversion charges at such rates and
in such manner as may be prescribed
with respect to the following changes
in use:
(i) from residential to commercial or
any other purpose; or
(ii) from commercial to any other
purpose; or
(iii) from industrial to commercial or
any other purpose; or
(iv) from cinema to commercial or any
other purpose:
Provided that rates of conversion
charges may be different for
different areas and for different
purposes.
(4) Any person who has already
changed the use of land in violation
of the provisions of this Act in
force at the time of change of use,
shall apply to the State Government
or any authority authorised by it
under sub-section (3), within six
months from the date of commencement
of the Rajasthan Municipalities
(Amendment) Act, 1999 (19 of 1999)
for regularisation on said use and
upon regularisation of the change of
use of land he shall deposit the
amount contemplated under sub-section
(3).
11
(5) Where the State Government or
the authority authorised by it under
sub-section (3) is satisfied that a
person who ought to have applied for
permission or regularisation under
this Section, has not applied and
that such permission can be granted
or the use of land can be
regularised, it may proceed to
determine the conversion charges
after due notice and hearing the
party/parties and the charges so
determined shall become due to the
municipality and be recoverable under
sub-section (7).
(6) The conversion charges so
realised shall be credited to the
fund of the municipality.
(7) Charges under this section
shall be the first charge on the
interest of the person liable to pay
such charges with respect to the
land, the use of which has been
changed and shall be recoverable as
arrears of land revenue.””
9. Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment
Act of 1999 is also relevant to notice, which is to
the following effect:
“The existing provisions contained in
Section 173-A of the Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 1959 provide that where
any land has been allotted or sold subject
to the condition of restraining its use for
a particular purpose, to any person by a
Municipality or the State Government, the
State Government may, if it is satisfied so
to do in public interest, allow the owner
12
or holder of the land, to use it for any
other purpose other than the purpose for
which it was originally allotted or sold,
on payment of such conversion charge as may
be prescribed.
With a view to ensure planned and
regulated development of the urban areas it
is necessary to restrict and bar the change
of use in certain circumstances of those
lands also which were not sold or allotted
by Municipality or the State Government.
However, the power of the State Government
or any other authority authorised by it, to
allow change of use of land, on payment of
conversion charges is sought to be
retained.
With a view to achieve the aforesaid
objective, the existing Section 173-A of
the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 is
proposed to be substituted.”
10. The demand for conversion charges having been
raised in the present case in the year 2002, the
provisions of Section 173-A as amended by Act 19 of
1999 are applicable in the present case. A perusal of
unamended and amended Section 173-A indicates that
there is substantial change in the statutory
provision of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959.
Prior to amendment, the power of the State Government
to allow the change in the use of land was confined
to a land allotted or sold by Municipality or the
State Government. The amended Section 173-A has not
13
only changed heading of the Section but contents
also. Section 173-A as amended contains restriction
on use of land. Both sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2) of Section 173-A now contain a restriction on
both the categories of land, i.e., (i) originally
allotted or sold by the State Government, any
Municipality and other local authority or any other
body or legal authority; (ii) in the case of any land
not allotted or sold and not covered under sub-
section (1). The restriction is that no person shall
use or permit the use of any such land situated in a
municipal area other than that for which such land
use was or is permissible, in accordance with the
Master Plan, wherever it is in operation. The amended
provision of Section 173-A has been brought on the
Statute book to ensure planned development of a
municipal area. Master Plans are to be prepared
according to the statutory Scheme keeping in view the
future developments of the city and the municipal
area. A clear distinction between the statutory
Scheme under Section 173-A, unamended and amended, is
visible. Earlier the restriction was there only with
14
regard to land, which has been allotted or sold to
any person by a Municipality or the State that too
restriction for land use for any other purpose other
than the purpose for which it was originally allotted
or sold. After the amendment restriction is with
regard to the land use as provided in Master Plan.
Even if prior to amendment in Section 173-A, a person
holding the land which was neither allotted nor sold
to it by Municipality or State could have used the
land for any purpose, the restriction has now been
placed by amended Section 173-A. In the facts of the
present case, even though prior to amendment of
Section 173-A the respondents were using the land for
commercial purposes that user is prohibited by virtue
of restriction brought by amended Section 173-A(2)
for using the land for a purpose other than one which
is permitted under Master Plan, permission of State
or any authority authorised by it, is required as
provided by sub-section (3) of Section 173-A.
11. We need to notice the land use as permissible in
the Master Plan, which was in operation at the
15
relevant time when respondents submitted an
application for sanction of building plan for
commercial-cum-residential complex.
12. The appellants have filed a rejoinder-affidavit
dated 26.07.2019 wherein Jaipur Development Authority
Land Use Plan-2011 has been brought on record as
Annexure-R/1, which indicates that Master Development
Plan was prepared and approved, which Plan for Jaipur
Region came into force with effect from 01.09.1998.
In paragraph 6(c) of the rejoinder-affidavit, it has
been pleaded that the Master Plan 2011 has been
notified on 01.09.1998. It was further pleaded that
with a view to ensure planned and regulated
development, the Master Plan 2011 for Jaipur Region
was notified in which the present area where the
property in question is situated was declared a
‘residential’ area. In the Land Use Plan 2011 of
Master Plan 2011 as per Annexure-R/1 Plot No.21, Lal
Niwas is mentioned as residential as submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellants.
16
13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
submitted that Annexure-R/1 filed by the appellants
along with the rejoinder-affidavit is only a map
which cannot be read to mean that land use of Plot
No.21, Lal Niwas, has been shown as residential
except that it has been marked as residential by
officials of the Corporation. It has further been
pleaded in the rejoinder-affidavit that in Master
Plan 2025, which was brought into force on
01.09.2011, the property in question has now been
earmarked as commercial.
14. In event, the appellants claim that land use of
Plot No.21 in the Master Plan 2011 enforced w.e.f.
01.09.1998 is accepted as residential, the
restriction as imposed by sub-section 2 of Section
173-A as amended by Act, 1999 shall come into force
and for change of land use as given in Master Plan
2011, the respondents were obliged to seek permission
under sub-section (3) of Section 173-A and without
payment of conversion charges, they could not have
obtained sanction map for commercial use of the land.
17
This Court in Municipal Corporation, Rajasthan vs.
Sanjeev Sachdeva and others, (2013) 12 SCC 562, had
occasion to consider Section 173-A as amended by Act
19 of 1999.
15. In the above case also, the respondents therein
had purchased a plot of land with a house on
09.09.2002, situated in a residential area by way of
a registered sale deed. On an application submitted
for conversion of land use from residential to
commercial, certain amount was deposited by the
respondents. The respondents filed a writ petition
challenging the vires of the amended Section 173-A as
well as the demand notice. The writ petition after
some litigation was allowed by the learned Single
Judge and demand notice was quashed. The Division
Bench dismissed the appeal of the Corporation against
which judgment the Municipal Corporation had come to
this Court. This Court while interpreting Section
173-A laid down following in paragraph Nos.11, 12 and
13:
“11. A bare reading of unamended Section
173-A(1) of the Act would indicate that the
18
conversion for change of land use charges
could only be realised if the land was
allotted by the Municipality or the State
Government and there was a condition for
restraining use for a particular purpose
only. Therefore, in the absence of land
being allotted by the State Government/
Municipality and in absence of any specific
stipulation regarding use of land, the
conversion charges could not be claimed.
This was the ratio laid down in Pareshar
Soni case, (2007) 14 SCC 144, interpreting
the unamended Section 173-A of the Act. The
Legislature, with a view to ensure planned
and regulated development of the urban area
felt it necessary to charge for the change
of use in certain circumstances of those
lands which were not sold or allotted by
municipality or by the State Government,
Further, it is also felt that such a change
of user be permitted only "in public
interest". In this connection, we may refer
to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Amendment Act, 1999, which reads as
under:
“The existing provisions contained in
Section 173-A of the Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 1959 provide that
where any land has been allotted or sold
subject to the condition of restraining
its use for a particular purpose, to any
person by a Municipality or the State
Government, the State Government may, if
it is satisfied so to do in public
interest, allow the owner or holder of the
land, to use it for any other purpose
other than the purpose for which it was
originally allotted or sold, on payment of
such conversion charge as may be
prescribed.
With a view to ensure planned and
regulated development of the urban areas
it is necessary to restrict and bar the
19
change of use in certain circumstances of
those lands also which were not sold or
allotted by Municipality or the State
Government. However, the power of the
State Government or any other authority
authorized by it, to allow change of use
of land, on payment of conversion charges
is sought to be retained.
With a view to achieve the aforesaid
objective, the existing Section 173-A of
the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 is
proposed to be substituted.”
12. Amended Section 173-A not only
restricts the change of use of land, as the
same has been allotted by the municipality
or the State Government, but also put
restrictions if the land has been allotted
by any other local authority. Section 173-
A(2) covers the cases which are not even
covered by Section 173-A(1) and brings in
its fold even the change of use of land
which is not in consonance with the Master
Plan. Further Sections 173-A(1)(2) and (3)
also contemplate a situation wherein the
State Government is entitled to levy
conversion charges if the change in use
from one purpose to other purpose. The
amendment was necessitated since the State
Legislature thought the provision of
Section 173-A (unamended) stood as an
impediment for proper planning of urban
areas. In other words, with a view to
ensure planned and regulated development of
urban areas, it was felt that some
restrictions have to be imposed and it was
for that purpose that Section 173-A was
amended.
13. We may, in this respect, also
indicate that, in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 297 read with
Section 173-A of the 1959 Act, 2000 Rules
20
were promulgated. It is under the
abovementioned Rules that the Respondents
filed an application on 16.7.2003 for
change of land use from residential to
commercial. Following those Rules, the
Corporation issued public notice inviting
objections. Later, the Land Use Committee
met and approved the conversion for which a
demand notice of Rs. 5,70,300/- was raised
by the Corporation on 2.4.2004. We are of
the view that the demand is legal and valid
and in accordance with the provisions of
Section 173-A, as inserted by Amendment Act
19 of 1999 read with the 2000 Rules. We are
also of the view that the Rajasthan High
Court has committed an error in applying
the judgment of this Court in Pareshar Soni
case which was dealing with the unamended
provision of Section 173-A.”
16. The law laid down by this Court in the above case
is fully applicable in the facts of the present case.
The present case is also where sub-section (2) of
Section 173-A covers the case.
17. We may also notice one of the submissions
vehemently raised by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the respondents were forced to
deposit the conversion charges, which they deposited
under the protest. The copy of the writ petition
filed by the respondents has been brought on record
21
as Annexure-P/12. In paragraph Nos. 5,6 and 7,
following has been pleaded by the respondents:
“5. That the petitioners intended to get the
aforesaid plot of land admeasuring
10067.14 sq.yards which is equivalent to
8420.56 sq. meters, developed by
constructing a multi-storeyed
commercial-cum-residential complex. In
this connection, on having been
approached the respondents No.2 & 3
asked to apply with them for land use
conversion as a condition precedent so
that maps of building plans can be
approved for constructing commercial-
cum-residential complex.
6. That the respondents No 2 & 3 vide order
bearing No.F.13/At.Mu.N.Niyo./ dated
22.02.2003 directed to deposit an amount
of 1,01,04,672/- towards conversion
charges. The copy of the aforesaid order
dated 22.02.2003 is being enclosed
herewith and marked as Annexure.2.
7. That in pursuance of the aforesaid order
passed by the respondents No.2 & 3, the
humble petitioners reserving their
rights deposited the amount so demanded
i.e. a sum of Rs.1,01,04,672/- through
pay order dated 20.03.2003 drawn on City
Bank, M.I.Road, Jaipur vide duly filled
challan dated 16.1.2003/20.3.2003 under
Covering Letter dated 20.3.2003.
Consequently, receipt dated 20.3.2003
was issued from office of respondents
No.2 & 3 in proof of said amount having
been duly deposited. The photocopy of
the Covering letter dated 20.3.2003
along with receipt dated 20.3.2003 and
challan dated 16.1.2003/20.3.2003 are
being enclosed herewith and collectively
marked as Annexure-3.”
22
18. The above pleading of the respondents only
indicates that when they intended to construct multi-
storeyed building for commercial-cum-residential
complex they were told to deposit conversion charges
as a condition precedent for sanction map. Learned
Single Judge in its judgment had noted that the
respondents intended to deposit conversion charges
for the land use as commercial-cum-residential
complex. The submission of the learned counsel for
the respondents that they were forced to apply for
conversion of land use from residential to commercial
does not commend us. Whether the respondents were
liable to deposit the conversion charges is to be
determined in accordance with the statutory Scheme
and statutory requirement. In the event, under the
Statute they were obliged to obtain conversion of
land use from residential to commercial, they were
bound to do the same and the fact that they were
asked by the Corporation to do the same is
inconsequential.
23
19. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has
been unduly led by the fact that land which was
purchased in the year 1959 is being used for
commercial purpose. The Division Bench did not advert
to sub-section (2) of Section 173-A as amended by Act
19 of 1999 and its consequences. The total
consideration of the Division Bench on the entire
case is in paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 which are to the
following effect:
“7. We have gone through the property
document which shows that the land was
purchased in the year 1959 and the same
property was used by the company for
commercial purposes. In our considered
opinion, with a view to avoid any delay in
their construction activities, the
appellants have paid the amount under
protest to the respondents.
8. In that view of the matter, respondents
are not entitled for conversion charges and
the amount deposited by the appellants is
required to be refunded with immediate
effect.
9. The respondents are directed to refund
the said amount alongwith interest @ 6%
within a period of three months from today.
If the payment is not made within a period
of three months, the appellants will be
entitled for interest @ 9% and difference
of 3% will be recovered from the officer
who has made delay in making payment.”
24
20. We are of the view that the Division Bench did
not consider the issues raised in the appeal in the
correct perspective and has not adverted to the
effect and operation of the statutory Scheme as
delineated by sub-section (2) of Section 173-A as
amended by Act 19 of 1999. The judgment of the
Division Bench, thus, cannot be upheld.
21. We may also notice that this Court in Municipal
Corporation, Rajasthan (supra) although had allowed
the appeal but gave liberty to the respondents to
take up the issue before the Corporation regarding
land use in the Master Plan which was in operation at
the relevant time. In paragraph No.14 of the
judgment, following has been observed:
“14. The learned Counsel appearing for
the respondents, however, submitted that
the area in question is notified as
commercial area under the Master Plan and,
therefore, there is no question of any
conversion of the residential property to
commercial. We notice that this point was
not raised before the High Court and we
are, therefore, not called upon to decide
that question. However, the Respondents, if
so advised, may take up this issue before
the Corporation and it is for the
Corporation to consider that issue in
accordance with law. Appeals are
25
accordingly allowed and the judgments of
the High Court are set aside. However,
there will be no order as to costs.”
22. In the present case, learned Single Judge has
made following observation:
“It is also not disputed that in the
Master Plan area in question is ear marked
for commercial use and it is also not
disputed the earlier the area in question
is used for commercial purpose. Therefore,
the petitioner moved application for
conversion for approval of map for
constructing a commercial building.”
23. Although learned Single Judge made the above
observation, but the judgment does not indicate that
said observations were made after looking into the
Master Plan which was in force at the time of
submission of application by the respondents.
24. The Division Bench did not advert to either sub-
section (2) of Section 173-A or to the land use in
the Master Plan at the relevant time, i.e., in the
year 2002 when the respondents made an application
for sanction of building plan. The appellants
although have brought on record the Land Use Plan
2011, which is in force w.e.f. 01.09.1998 along with
26
their rejoinder-affidavit but since during the
submission learned counsel for the respondents has
contended that the said Land Use Plan 2011 does not
conclusively establish that land use of Plot No.21
was residential, we are, thus, of the view that ends
of justice shall be served in giving liberty to the
respondents to submit a representation before the
Corporation, if there are any materials and grounds
that in the Master Plan which was in operation in the
year 2002, when respondents submitted an application
that land use of Plot No.21, Lal Niwas was not
residential but commercial. Subject to the above
liberty, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment is set aside. Parties shall bear their own
costs.
......................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
......................J.
( NAVIN SINHA )
New Delhi,
August 05, 2019