{"id":161745,"date":"1992-05-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-05-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992"},"modified":"2018-09-28T16:43:49","modified_gmt":"2018-09-28T11:13:49","slug":"ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992","title":{"rendered":"Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) &#8230; vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 28 May, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) &#8230; vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 28 May, 1992<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1992 SCR  (3) 465, \t  1993 SCC  Supl.  (1)\t61<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N Kasliwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Kasliwal, N.M. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nANSAL PROPERTIES &amp; INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/05\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 SCR  (3) 465\t  1993 SCC  Supl.  (1)\t61\n JT 1992 (4)   264\t  1992 SCALE  (2)2\n\n\nACT:\n     Delhi   Development   Act,\t 1947-Sections\t 9(2),\t 41-\nLegislative  object-Master  plan-Restriction  on  high\trise\nconstruction by Central Government-Legality of.\n     Delhi Development Act, 1947-Sections 41 read with\tBye-\nLaws  6.7.4, 6.1 of the Building Bye-Laws, 1983 of the Delhi\nDevelopment Authority-Requirement under-Deemed sanction-When\narises-Compounding fee-Charging of interest-Whether arises.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The auction of leasehold rights on the plot in question\nwas  in\t favour\t of the appellant for  Rs.  8.13  crores  on\n19.1.1981.  The appellant paid 25% of the auction amount  on\nthe  fail  of  the  hammer.   According\t to  the  terms\t and\nconditions  of\tthe auction balance 75% was required  to  be\npaid  within  90 days of the formal acceptance\tof  the\t bid\nwhich was made on 18.2.1982.\n     The appellants did not pay the balance amount and\ttook\na  stand that there was some confusion as to whether it\t was\nD.D.A.\tor  the Union of India, which was the owner  of\t the\nplot  in question.  The appellant also sought for  time\t for\npayment\t on the ground that money market in relation to\t the\nland property had gone down tremendously.\n     On\t 14.12.1984 revised terms were communicated  by\t the\nD.D.A.\tto  the\t appellants.  The  essential  terms  of\t the\nrevised agreement were that 25%\t of the bid amount was to be\npaid within 90 days of the issuance of the letter of revised\nterms.\t50% of the remaining bid amount along with  interest\nfor  delayed  payments\twas to be paid in  five\t equal\thalf\nyearly instalments which included the interest calculated at\n18% per annum.\n     The  appellants submitted a bank guarantee\t dated\t15th\nJuly,  1985  in favour of the D.D.A. The fresh\tschedule  of\ninstalments   was   specifically  mentioned  in\t  the\tbank\nguarantee.  Thereafter on 23.7.1985, a formal deed\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       466\nof agreement was executed between the parties and possession\nover  the plot was given on 25.7.1985.\tThe  building  plans\nwere  submitted by the appellant on 12.8.1985.\t The  D.D.A.\nforwarded building plans to the Delhi Urban Arts  Commission\n(DUAC).\t  The  DUAC  by its letter  dated  18.9.1985  sought\ncertain\t clarifications from the appellant within  ten\tdays\nand  again sent a reminder on 24.9.1985, but  the  appellant\ndid not send any reply.\n     The  appellant  sent  a  notice  for  commencement\t  of\nconstruction  on  15.10.1985 claiming that they\t having\t not\nreceived  any order of rejection of the plans  within  sixty\ndays  as  contemplated under bye-law No. 6.7.4.\t had  become\nentitled  to  deemed sanction; that  the  first\t instalment,\naccording  to the re-schedule of instalments was payable  on\n15.11.1985 but even before that they had paid Rs.47 lakhs on\n8.10.1985 itself.\n     Thereafter\t the  Government  of  India  by\t an   office\nmemorandum dated 17.10.1985 decided to stop construction  of\nmulti-storeyed\tbuilding in New Delhi including areas  under\nD.D.A. and Municipal Corporation, with immediate effect till\nthe Master plan for 2001 was finalised.\n     The  DUAC then returned the proposals of the  buildings\nplans  of  the appellant to the D.D.A. on  20.11.1985.\t The\nD.D.A. by its letter dated 9.12.1985 informed the appellants\nregarding  the\tdecision  of the  Government  of  India\t and\nreturned  the  building\t plans and it was  directed  not  to\nprocess\t the sanction further till further  directions\twere\nreceived from the Government of India.\n     A notice to stop the construction immediately till\t the\nplans were sanctioned finally by the D.D.A. was given to the\nappellants on 17.1.1986.\n     On\t 25.3.86  the D.D.A. informed  the  appellants\tthat\ntheir  plans  had  been rejected as the\t same  had  no\tbeen\napproved by the DUAC.\n     The  appellants  filed writ  petition  challenging\t the\nnotice\tissued\tby the D.D.A. of stopping  the\tconstruction\nwork and also the ban introduced by the Government of India.\n     The  High\tCourt on 17.9.1986 passed an  interim  order\npermitting the appellants to continue the construction\twork\nat their own risk.\n     On\t 15.10.1987  the bank guarantee was invoked  by\t the\nD.D.A. for a sum of Rs.8 crores approximately.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       467\n     The appellants filed a second writ petition challenging\nthe  encashment of the bank gurantee by D.D.A. and  obtained\nan  interim order on 28.10.1987 restraining the D.D.A.\tfrom\nencashing the bank guarantee.\n     The ban imposed by the Central Government was lifted on\n8.2.1988.  The appellants completed the construction of\t the\nbuilding in 1988 under the cover of the stay order given  by\nthe  High Court.  The two writ petitions were  dismissed  by\nthe High Court.\n     These appeals were filed by the contractors against the\njudgment  of  the High Court, by special  leave,  contending\nthat  the  D.D.A. was not entitled to  charge  any  compound\ninterest;  that\t the D.D.A. was not entitiled to  claim\t any\ninterest  for the period 7.10.1985 to 8.2.1988 during  which\nthe  ban  in  respect  of  construction\t of   multi-storeyed\nbuildings  remained in force; that the ban itself  was\talso\nillegal;  that\tthe  D.D.A. was not entitled  to  claim\t any\ncompounding  fee;  and that the D.D.A. was not\tentitled  to\nclaim any interest on the compounding fee.\n     Partly  allowing the appeals of the  contractors,\tthis\ncourt,\n     HELD:  1.1. The object of Delhi Development Act  is  to\nprovide for the development of Delhi according to the  plan.\nWhile under Section 9(2) of the Delhi Development Act  every\nmaster\tplan has to be submitted to the\t Central  Government\nfor approval and the Government may either approve the\tplan\nwithout\t modifications or with such modifications as it\t may\nconsider necessary or reject the plan with directions to the\nAuthority  to  prepare\ta  fresh  plan\taccording  to\tsuch\ndirections.   The  Development Authority had  sent  the\t new\nmaster\tplan for approval of the Central Government  and  as\nsuch the Government for the planned development of Delhi was\nentitled to issue directions in consonance with law.  [475H-\n476B]\n     1.2.  There  was  no  violation of\t law  in  issuing  a\nrestriction   on   high\t rise\tconstructions\tduring\t the\nformulation  stages  of\t the new  master  plan\tpending\t for\napproval  before the Central Government.  Thus it cannot  be\nsaid  that the ban imposed by the Central Government was  in\nany manner unauthorised or illegal. [476 D]\n     2.1.  The\tquestion of deemed sanction only  arises  if\nwithin sixty days of the receipt of notice under 6.1. of the\nbye-laws  the authority fails to intimate in writing to\t the\nperson who has given a notice of its refusal or\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       468\nsanction or any intimation. [478 B]\n     2.2.  In the instant case the D.D.A. had  informed\t the\nappellant that the plans had been sent to DUAC for  approval\nand  the DUAC was also seeking some clarifications from\t the\nappellant  by their letters dated 18.9.1985  and  24.9.1985.\n[478 B]\n     2.3.  The\trequirement as\tcontemplated  under  bye-law\n6.7.4.\tis  that  the  fact of deemed  sanction\t has  to  be\nimmediately  brought  to  the notice  of  the  authority  in\nwriting by the person who has given notice and thereafter if\nno intimation is received from the authority within 15\tdays\nof  giving  such  written notice  the  provision  of  deemed\nsanction comes into operation.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     [478 C]\n     2.4. The appellant only sent a notice for\tcommencement\nof  construction on 15.10.1985 and the same does not  fulfil\nthe  requirement of the notice which is\t contemplated  under\nbye-law\t 6.7.4.\t in as much as intimation had  already\tbeen\ngiven by DUAC seeking information.  Apart from this the\t ban\non  the construction of multi-storeyed buildings  came\tinto\noperation  from\t 17.10.1985  itself  and  in  view  of\tthis\ncircumstance also there was no question of the applicability\nof deemed sanction in the facts of this case.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    [478D-E]\n     2.5.  The amount which was required to be paid in\tfive\ninstalments  of\t Rs. 166.20 lakhs each\tfrom  15.11.1985  to\n15.11.1987, included simple interest charged at the rate  of\n18% per annum but it was based on a fresh agreement and\t the\nappellants cannot claim any right to re-open the transaction\non  the basis of terms of auction made originally  in  1982.\nThe  indulgence of re-scheduling of delayed payment  of\t bid\namount\tin  July,  1985\t was made  on  the  request  of\t the\nappellant  and\tfor  its own benefit.  Thus  the  D.D.A.  is\nperfectly right and justified in claiming future interest at\nthe  rate of 18% per annum on the instalments fixed  in\t the\nagreement dated 23rd July, 1985.  The D.D.A. is not charging\nany  compound interest but are claiming simple\tinterest  at\nthe rate of 18% per annum on the amount of instalments fixed\nin  the fresh agreement dated 23rd July, 1985 till  payment,\nAfter novation of the agreement the instalments fixed  shall\nbe considered as principal amount and thus it is not a\tcase\nof charging compound interest.\t[474H-475C]\n     2.6. For charging of interest during the ban period  is\nconcerned, the D.D.A. cannot be held responsible as the\t ban\nwas  imposed  by the Central Government.   This\t action\t was\ntaken for the whole of Delhi and the D.D.A.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       469\nwas  to carry out such directions as provided under  Section\n41 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. [475D-E]\n     2.7.  It is not in dispute that the building  has\tbeen\nconstructed  without any sanction or permit from the  D.D.A.\nas required under the building bye-laws and the building has\nbeen constructed at the risk of the appellant under the stay\norder of the High Court. [478 F]\n     2.8.   No\tbuilding  permit  has  been  given  to\t the\nappellants and as such they are bound to pay the compounding\nfee  according to the rates prescribed in this regard.\t[479\nC]\n     2.9.  In  the facts and circumstances of the  case\t the\nD.D.A.\tis  not\t entitled  to charge  any  interest  on\t the\ncompounding fee. [479 D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLANTS JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.\t2457<br \/>\nand 58 of 1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated 31.10.1991  of\t the<br \/>\nDelhi High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 1499\/86 and 3068 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Harish  Salve, Ms. J.S. Wad, Ms. Tamali Wad  and  Manoj<br \/>\nWad for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     V.R. Reddy, Addl. Solicitor General, Arun Jaitley,\t Ms.<br \/>\nIndu Malhotra, C. Ramesh, V.K. Verma and C.V.S. Rao for\t the<br \/>\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     D.D.  Sharma, C.L. Chopra and Ms. Rachna Issar for\t the<br \/>\nIntervener.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     KASLIWAL, J. Sepcial leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t is one more avoidable litigation between Ansals,  a<br \/>\nbig building contractor and the Delhi Development  Authority<br \/>\nin  which allegations and counter allegations for breach  of<br \/>\nterms of contract have been levelled against each other.  We<br \/>\nwould have asked the appellant to stand in queue for hearing<br \/>\nof the matter, but the real sufferers would be those persons<br \/>\nwho  have  invested their hard earned life time\t savings  in<br \/>\nforlorn\t hope  of  an allotment of a flat  in  a  commercial<br \/>\nbuilding on plot No. 38 situated in Nehru Palce near Kalkaji<br \/>\na prime place of importance in Delhi.  It is the  repetition<br \/>\nof  the\t usual bureaucratic rigmarole from the side  of\t the<br \/>\nDelhi<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       470<\/span><br \/>\nDevelopment   Authority\t and  the  usual  payment  of\tsome<br \/>\ninstalments  of the lease money and  thereafter\t withholding<br \/>\nthe  payment  of the balance amount on one  pretext  or\t the<br \/>\nother form the side of the builders.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for\t the<br \/>\ndisposal  of  this case are that the  auction  of  leasehold<br \/>\nrights\ton  plot  No. 38, Nehru Place was  knocked  down  in<br \/>\nfavour\tof  M\/s\t Ansal Properties  &amp;  Industries  (P)  Ltd.,<br \/>\nhereinafter  referred  to as &#8220;the appellant&#8221;  for  Rs.\t8.13<br \/>\ncrores\ton 19.1.1981.  25% of the auction amount was paid on<br \/>\nthe  fall  of  the  hammer.   According\t to  the  terms\t and<br \/>\nconditions of the auction the balance 75% was required to be<br \/>\npaid  within  90 days of the formal acceptance\tof  the\t bid<br \/>\nwhich  was made on 18.2.1982.  The appellant admittedly\t did<br \/>\nnot  pay the balance amount and took a stand that there\t was<br \/>\nsome  confusion as to whether it was D.D.A. or the Union  of<br \/>\nIndia,\twhich  was the owner of the plot in  question.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  also sought the indulgence of granting more\ttime<br \/>\nfor  payment on the ground that money market in relation  to<br \/>\nthe land property had gone down tremendously.  On 14.12.1984<br \/>\nrevised\t terms\twere  communicated  by\tthe  D.D.A.  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant.   The  essential terms of the  revised  agreement<br \/>\nwere  that  25% of the bid amount was to be paid  within  90<br \/>\ndays  of the issuance of the letter of revised terms. 50% of<br \/>\nthe  remaining\tbid amount along with interest\tfor  delayed<br \/>\npayments   was\tto  be\tpaid  in  five\tequal  half   yearly<br \/>\ninstalments  which included the interest calculated  at\t 18%<br \/>\nper  annum.  These instalments were fixed in  the  following<br \/>\nmanner :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     (i)   Ist instalment payable on 15.11.1985\t Rs.  166.20<br \/>\n\t  lacs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (ii)  2nd\tinstalment payable on 15.5.1986\t Rs.  166.20<br \/>\n\t   lacs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (iii)  3rd instalment payable on 15.11.1986 Rs.  166.20<br \/>\n\t   lacs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (iv)  4th\tinstalment payable on 15.5.1987\t Rs.  166.20<br \/>\n\t   lacs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (v)  5th  instamlent payment on 15.11.1987\t Rs.  166.20<br \/>\n\t  lacs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The appellant is this regard submitted a bank guarantee<br \/>\ndated  15th  July, 1985 of the Canara Bank and New  Bank  of<br \/>\nIndia in favour of the D.D.A.  The aforesaid fresh  schedule<br \/>\nof  instalments\t was  specifically  mentioned  in  the\tbank<br \/>\ngurantee.   Thereafter\ta  formal  deed\t of  agreement\t was<br \/>\nexecuted  between  the parties on 23.7.1985  and  possession<br \/>\nover  the plot was given on 25.7.1985.\tThe  building  plans<br \/>\nwere  submitted by the appellant on 12.8.1985.\t The  D.D.A.<br \/>\nvide letter dated 13.9.1985 forwarded building plans<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       471<\/span><br \/>\nto the Delhi Urban  Arts Commission (DUAC). The DUAC by\t its<br \/>\nletter\tdated 18.9.1985 sought certain\tclarifications\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  appellant\twithin ten days and again sent\treminder  on<br \/>\n24.9.1985,  but the appellant did not send any\treply.\t The<br \/>\nappellant   then   sent\t a  notice   for   commencement\t  of<br \/>\nconstruction on 15.10.1985.  The appellant claimed that they<br \/>\nhaving\tnot  received any order of rejection  of  the  plans<br \/>\nwithin\tsixty days as contemplated under bye law No.  6.7.4.<br \/>\nhad  become  entitled  to deemed  sanction.   The  appellant<br \/>\nclaimed\t that  the first instalment, according\tto  the\t re-<br \/>\nschedule  of instalments was payable on 15.11.1985 but\teven<br \/>\nbefore that they had paid Rs. 47 lakhs on 8.10.1985  itself.<br \/>\nThereafter the Government of India by an office\t  memorandum<br \/>\ndated\t17.10.1985   decided   to   stop   construction\t  of<br \/>\nmulti-storeyed buildings in New Delhi including areas  under<br \/>\nD.D.A.\tand Municipal Corporation of Delhi falling in  South<br \/>\nDelhi,\twith immediate effect till the Master plan for\t2001<br \/>\nwas  finalised.\t  It was clarified  that  a  `multi-storeyed<br \/>\nbuilding&#8217; may be taken as a building going beyond 45 feet or<br \/>\nabove four storeys, which has to be serviced by lifts.\t The<br \/>\nDUAC  then returned the proposals of the building  plans  of<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tto the D.D.A. on 20th November,\t 1985.\t The<br \/>\nD.D.A. by its letter dated 9.12.1985 informed the  appellant<br \/>\nregarding  the\tdecision  of the  Government  of  India\t and<br \/>\nreturned the building `&#8217; plans and requested them to  depute<br \/>\ntheir architect to discuss about the height of the building.<br \/>\nIt  was mentioned in the letter that the sanction shall\t not<br \/>\nbe  processed further till further directions  are  received<br \/>\nfrom the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.<br \/>\nA notice to stop the construction immediately till the plans<br \/>\nwere  sanctioned  finally  by the D.D.A. was  given  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant  on 17.1.1986.  By another letter dated  25.3.1986<br \/>\nthe D.D.A. informed the appellant that their plans had\tbeen<br \/>\nrejected as the same had not been approved by the DUAC.\t The<br \/>\nappellants  then  filed writ petition No.  1499\/86  on\t17th<br \/>\nJuly,  1986 challenging the notice issued by the  D.D.A.  of<br \/>\nstopping  the construction work and also the ban  introduced<br \/>\nby  the\t Government of India.  The High Court  on  17.9.1986<br \/>\npassed\tan  interim  order  permitting\tthe  appellants\t  to<br \/>\ncontinue  the  construction  work at  their  own  risk.\t  On<br \/>\n15.10.1987 the bank guarantee was invoked by the D.D.A.\t for<br \/>\na sum of Rs. 8 crores approximately.  The appellants filed a<br \/>\nsecond\twrit  petition\tNo. 3068  of  1987  challenging\t the<br \/>\nencashment  of the bank gurantee by D.D.A. and\tobtained  an<br \/>\ninterim\t order\ton 28.10.1987 restraining  the\tD.D.A.\tfrom<br \/>\nencashing  the\tbank  guarantee.  The  ban  imposed  by\t the<br \/>\nCentral\t Government was lifted on 8.2.1988.  The  appellants<br \/>\ncompleted the construction of the building in 1988<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       472<\/span><br \/>\nunder the cover of they stay order given by the High  Court.<br \/>\nThe  aforesaid two writ petitions have been disposed  of  by<br \/>\nthe  High Court by order dated October 31, 1991.   The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  after examining the matter in detail arrived  to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t &#8220;After\t considering the pleadings of  the  parties,<br \/>\n\t documents  on\trecord and submissions\tmade  before<br \/>\n\t this  court,  it  is absolutely  evident  that\t the<br \/>\n\t petitioner has been consistently making defaults in<br \/>\n\t payment  of  the amount due to the  D.D.A.  on\t one<br \/>\n\t pretext  or the other.\t According to the  terms  of<br \/>\n\t the  auction, the petitioner&#8217;s bid was accepted  on<br \/>\n\t February  19, 1982 and the petitioner was  supposed<br \/>\n\t to deposit the balance 75% of the bid amount within<br \/>\n\t 90  days.   The  amount which ought  to  have\tbeen<br \/>\n\t deposited with the D.D.A. way back in 1982 has\t not<br \/>\n\t been deposited till this date.\t Further more at the<br \/>\n\t request of the petitioner, the D.D.A. entered\tinto<br \/>\n\t an  agreement with the petitioner.  This  agreement<br \/>\n\t was  entered  into because the\t petitioner  pleaded<br \/>\n\t grave\tfinancial  difficulty and according  to\t the<br \/>\n\t agreement, the first instalment had to be deposited<br \/>\n\t by  the petitioner on or before November  15,\t1985<br \/>\n\t and  all subsequent instalments on or\tbefore\t15th<br \/>\n\t November, 1987.  Astonishingly, till this date\t not<br \/>\n\t even one full instalment has been deposited by\t the<br \/>\n\t petitioner.  Looking to the entire past conduct  of<br \/>\n\t the petitioner, no indulgence can be granted in any<br \/>\n\t manner because any indulgence would be at the\tcost<br \/>\n\t of public money&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  High\tCourt  then  observed  that  after   careful<br \/>\nconsideration  of the facts and the issues involved  in\t the<br \/>\ncase  it  would be proper to dispose of the  writ  petitions<br \/>\nwith the following directions:\n<\/p>\n<p>     (i)  The  petitioner  is directed to  pay\tthe  balance<br \/>\noutstanding  amount due to the Delhi Development  Authority,<br \/>\nincluding  interest  at the rate of 18% per annum  within  a<br \/>\nperiod of two months from today.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (ii) the respondent-D.D.A. would be entitled to  encash<br \/>\nthe  bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. The  amount<br \/>\nrecovered   by\tencashment  of\tbank  guarantee\t  from\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  would stand adjusted from the total\t outstanding<br \/>\namount.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (iii)  On the petitioner&#8217;s making the  entire  payment,<br \/>\nthe respondent<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       473<\/span><br \/>\nshall  sanction the building plans forthwith and in no\tcase<br \/>\nlater  than  one month of receiving the\t entire\t outstanding<br \/>\namount from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (iv)  Thereafter  the petitioner shall  apply  for\t the<br \/>\ngrant of occupancy certificate as per rules, if not  already<br \/>\napplied.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The respondent D.D.A. shall grant necessary certificate<br \/>\nas  per rules without any delay but in any event  not  later<br \/>\nthan two weeks from the date of the petitioner&#8217;s  submitting<br \/>\napplication pertaining to occupancy certificate.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Subject to these directions, both these writ  petitions<br \/>\nare dismissed.\tCounsel&#8217;s fee is addressed at Rs. 5,000.  It<br \/>\nis  made clear that if the petitioner fails to\tcomply\twith<br \/>\nthe above directions, the respondent shall be at liberty  to<br \/>\ntake necessary action as permissible according to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Aggrieved\tagainst the aforesaid Judgment of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt the appellants by grant of special leave have come  in<br \/>\nappeal before this Court. We have heard learned counsel\t for<br \/>\nthe  parties  at  length and  have  thoroughly\tperused\t the<br \/>\nrecord.\t The contentions now raised before us on  behalf  of<br \/>\nthe appellants can be summarised under the following points:\n<\/p>\n<p>     (i)  The D.D.A. is not entitled to charge any  compound<br \/>\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (ii)  The D.D.A. is not entitled to claim any  interest<br \/>\nfor the period 7.10.1985 to 8.2.1988 during which the ban in<br \/>\nrespect of construction of multi-storeyed building  remained<br \/>\nin force.  The ban itself was also illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (iii)   The  D.D.A.  is  not  entitled  to\t claim\t any<br \/>\ncompounding fee which amounts to Rs. 93 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (iv)  The D.D.A. is not entitled to claim any  interest<br \/>\non the compounding fee.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We shall consider the above submissions in seriatim.<br \/>\n     Point  No.\t 1:  It has been submitted  by\tthe  Learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for  the  appellants that  the\t authority  to\tlevy<br \/>\ninterest  in  the  instant case\t flows\tfrom  the  statutory<br \/>\ndirective  issued by the Government and incorporated in\t the<br \/>\nletter\t dated\t 14.12.1984.   This   letter   states\tthat<br \/>\n&#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;The delayed payment of premium will carry interest<br \/>\n18 per cent p.a. from the due date, viz.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       474<\/span><\/p>\n<p>17.5.1982,  to\tthe  actual dated  of  payment&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221;.\t The<br \/>\nrevised agreement dated 23rd July, 1985 accordingly provides<br \/>\nin  clause 2 &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;The balance amount and the interest\t for<br \/>\ndelayed\t payment of the bid amount shall be payable  by\t the<br \/>\nauction\t purchaser in five equated half\t yearly\t instalments<br \/>\nincluding  interest calculated at 18 per cent per  annum  on<br \/>\nthe following dates&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t has  been contended that the bank  guarantee  dated<br \/>\n15.7.1985 is really a part of the same transaction.  In fact<br \/>\nthe  licence  agreement of 23.7.1985 was  issued  only\tupon<br \/>\nfurnishing  of\tthe bank guarantee dated 15.7.1985.   It  is<br \/>\nsubmitted  that\t the  total amount demanded  by\t the  D.D.A.<br \/>\nincludes an element of Rs. 6.69 crores as further  interest.<br \/>\nThis interest amounting to Rs. 6.69 crores comprises of\t the<br \/>\nfollowing  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230; (a) Rs. 3.27 crores is the interest  on<br \/>\nthe  balance  unpaid  premium  of Rs.  3.60  crores  (as  on<br \/>\n15.11.1985) (b) Rs. 3.42 crores is the interest on  interest<br \/>\ncomponent already included in the instalments referred to in<br \/>\nthe bank guarantee.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t has  been  contended  that  the  further  claim  of<br \/>\ninterest  on  the five instalments of Rs. 1.66\tcrores\teach<br \/>\namounts\t to  charging compound interest as  the\t instalments<br \/>\nalready include interest.  According to the appellants\teven<br \/>\nif  the\t interest  is charged then it  should  be  a  simple<br \/>\ninterest re-calculated as though the instalments instead  of<br \/>\nbeing  paid in the period 1985-87 are being paid in  1991-92<br \/>\non the same principle which was adopted when the instalments<br \/>\nwere initially fixed in 1985.  We find no force in the above<br \/>\ncontention.   As  already mentioned above  the\tauction\t was<br \/>\nknoked\tdown  for  Rs.\t8.13 crores  on\t 19.1.1982  and\t the<br \/>\nappellant  had\tpaid only 25% of the auction amount  on\t the<br \/>\nfall  of  the hammer.  According to the\t conditions  of\t the<br \/>\nauction\t the balance 75% was required to be  paid within  90<br \/>\ndays  of the formal acceptance of the bid which was made  on<br \/>\n18.2.1982.    The  balance  amount  was\t thus\tpayable\t  by<br \/>\n18.5.1982.  Admittedly the appellant did not pay the balance<br \/>\namount\tuntil  18.5.1982  and  thereafter  sought  to  raise<br \/>\ncertain\t objections regarding the ownership of the  plot  in<br \/>\nquestion,  but ultimately made a request that due  to  money<br \/>\nmarket\tin  relation to the land property having  gone\tdown<br \/>\ntremendously  some  more time may be given  for\t making\t the<br \/>\nbalance payment.  Thereafter a fresh agreement was  executed<br \/>\nby  the appellant on 23.7.1985 re-scheduling the payment  in<br \/>\ninstalments  and according to which the amount was  required<br \/>\nto be paid in five instalments of Rs. 166.20 lakhs each from<br \/>\n15.11.1985  to\t15.11.1987.  This amount no  doubt  included<br \/>\nsimple interest charged at the rate of 18% per<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       475<\/span><br \/>\nannum  but  it\twas  based on  a  fresh\t agreement  and\t the<br \/>\nappellants cannot claim any right to re-open the transaction<br \/>\non  the basis of terms of auction made originally  in  1982.<br \/>\nThe  indulgence of re-scheduling of delayed payment  of\t bid<br \/>\namount\tin  July,  1985\t was made  on  the  request  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  and\tfor  its own benefit.  Thus  the  D.D.A.  is<br \/>\nperfectly right and justified in claiming future interest at<br \/>\nthe  rate of 18% per annmum on the instalments fixed in\t the<br \/>\nagreement dated 23rd July, 1985.  The D.D.A. is not charging<br \/>\nany  compound interest but are claiming simple\tinterest  at<br \/>\nthe rate of 18% per annum on the amount of instalments fixed<br \/>\nin  the fresh agreement dated 23rd July, 1985 till  payment.<br \/>\nAfter novation of the agreement the instalments fixed  shall<br \/>\nbe considered as principal amount and thus it is not a\tcase<br \/>\n of charging compound interest as contended on behalf of  the<br \/>\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Point No. (ii) :- So far as charging of interest during<br \/>\nthe  ban  period  is concerned, the D.D.A.  cannot  be\theld<br \/>\nresponsible   as  the  ban  was\t imposed  by   the   Central<br \/>\nGovernment.  The Central Government by an office  memorandum<br \/>\ndated  17.10.1985  decided to stop  construction  of  multi-<br \/>\nstoreyed buildings in New Delhi including areas under D.D.A.<br \/>\nand  Municipal Corporation of Delhi falling in\tSouth  Delhi<br \/>\nwith  immediate\t effect\t till  master  plan  for  2001\t was<br \/>\nfinalised.  This action was taken for the whole of Delhi and<br \/>\nthe  D.D.A.  was  to carry out such directions\tas  provided<br \/>\nunder Section 41 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.   There<br \/>\nis  no allegation that such action was taken malafidely\t and<br \/>\nit cannot be considered as a valid ground for not paying the<br \/>\ninterest  for  the  period during which the  ban  on  multi-<br \/>\nstoreyed  constructions remained in force.  It may  also  be<br \/>\nnoted  that so far as the appellant is concerned it was\t not<br \/>\naffected by such ban as the construction contained under the<br \/>\numbrella  of  stay  order  obtained  from  the\tHigh  Court.<br \/>\nAccording  to  the  admitted  case  of\tthe  appellant\t the<br \/>\nconstruction  of the building had completed in\t1988  itself<br \/>\nand as such the appellant was not put to any loss on account<br \/>\nof the ban imposed by the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The master plan for Delhi was formulated originally  in<br \/>\n1962 with projections up to 1981.  There was no provision in<br \/>\nany  law, master plan, zonal development plans\tor  building<br \/>\nbye-laws  wherein  the appellant was entitled  to  construct<br \/>\nsixteen\t  storeys.   Thus  the\tdirective  of  the   Central<br \/>\nGovernment  dated  17.10.1985 imposing a ban  on  high\trise<br \/>\nstructures was not contrary to any law.\t The object of Delhi<br \/>\nDevelopment Act is to provide<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       476<\/span><br \/>\nfor  the development of Delhi according to the\tplan.  While<br \/>\nunder Section 9(2) of the Delhi Development Act every master<br \/>\nplan  has  to  be submitted to the  Central  Government\t for<br \/>\napproval  and  the Government may either  approve  the\tplan<br \/>\nwithout\t modifications or with such modifications as it\t may<br \/>\nconsider necessary or reject the plan with directions to the<br \/>\nAuthority  to  prepare\ta  fresh  plan\taccording  to\tsuch<br \/>\ndirections.   The  Development Authority had  sent  the\t new<br \/>\nmaster\tplan for approval of the Central Government  and  as<br \/>\nsuch the Government for the planned development of Delhi was<br \/>\nentitled  to  issue  directions\t in  consonance\t with\tlaw.<br \/>\nLearned\t counsel  for  the  appellants\thas  placed   strong<br \/>\nreliance  on  <a href=\"\/doc\/1460318\/\">Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.  Muddappa\t and<br \/>\nothers<\/a>,\t  (1991)   3   JT  172.\t  This\t case\tis   clearly<br \/>\ndistinguishable\t  since\t  in  that  case  the\tzonal\tplan<br \/>\nstatutorily  provided  for the user of a plot of land  as  a<br \/>\npark.\tThe  Chief  Minister  contrary\tto  the\t said  plan,<br \/>\nsanctioned  the plot for a nursing home.  Thus there  was  a<br \/>\npositive violation of law in that case.\t In the case in hand<br \/>\nbefore\tus  there  was\tno violation of\t law  in  issuing  a<br \/>\nrestriction   on   high\t rise\tconstructions\tduring\t the<br \/>\nformulation  stages  of\t the new  master  plan\tpending\t for<br \/>\napproval  before the Central Government.  Thus it cannot  be<br \/>\nsaid  that the ban imposed by the Central Government was  in<br \/>\nany manner unauthorised or illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Point  No. (iii) :- It has been contended on behalf  of<br \/>\nthe  appellants that no compounding fee can be levied  since<br \/>\nthe D.D.A. had wrongfully withheld grant of sanction to\t the<br \/>\nbuilding  plans\t submitted by the appellant.   It  has\tbeen<br \/>\nfurther contended that in view of the commitment made in the<br \/>\nlicence deed as well as the agreement read together with the<br \/>\nletter\tof 14.12.1984, the D.D.A. was bound to sanction\t the<br \/>\nplans.\t It  has  been contended that when  the\t plans\twere<br \/>\nsubmitted to the D.D.A. for sanction on 12.8.1985, there was<br \/>\nno sum outstanding as due and payable as all the sums  which<br \/>\nwere  payable under the agreement up to that date  had\tbeen<br \/>\nduly   paid.   According  to the fresh\tagreement the  first<br \/>\ninstalment  was\t payable on 15.11.1985 and so far  as  other<br \/>\npayments are concerned the same had already been paid by the<br \/>\nappellants.  Even according to the bye-laws, the D.D.A.\t had<br \/>\nto  sanction plans within sixty days and the D.D.A.  had  no<br \/>\njustification  of  withholding the sanction as\tnothing\t was<br \/>\nrequired  to  be done on behalf of the appellants.   It\t has<br \/>\nbeen further contended that according to the stand taken  by<br \/>\nthe  D.D.A. itself the sanction was not withheld on  account<br \/>\nof non-payment of any dues but on account of the ban put  by<br \/>\nthe Central Government.\t It has been further argued that  in<br \/>\nany event, the building has been constructed pursuant to the<br \/>\ninterim orders of the High<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       477<\/span><br \/>\nCourt  which  expressly permitted the  construction  of\t the<br \/>\nbuilding albeit at the risk and cost of the appellant.\t The<br \/>\nHigh  Court  has  itself  recorded a  finding  that  the  16<br \/>\nstoreyed  building stands constructed according to the\tbye-<br \/>\nlaws  and even if a formal sanction is given now  it  should<br \/>\nrelate back to the date on which such sanction ought to have<br \/>\nbeen  granted and the building constructed by the  appellant<br \/>\nin the present case cannot be considered as unauthorised  in<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  admitted facts of the case are that  the  building<br \/>\nplans  were  submitted to the D.D.A. on\t 12.8.1985  and\t the<br \/>\nD.D.A.\thad forwarded the plans for approval of Delhi  Urban<br \/>\nArts  Commission  (DUAC) on 13.9.1985.\tSection\t 12  of\t the<br \/>\nDelhi  Urban Art Commission Act, 1973 clearly provides\tthat<br \/>\nnotwithstanding anything contained in any other law for\t the<br \/>\ntime  being  in\t force,\t every\tlocal  body  shall,   before<br \/>\naccording  approval  in respect of  any\t building  operation<br \/>\nrefer the same to the DUAC for scrutiny and the decision  of<br \/>\nthe  Commission in respect thereof shall be binding on\tsuch<br \/>\nlocal  body.  The DUAC by its letter dated 18.9.1985  sought<br \/>\ncertain\t clarifications from the appellant within ten  days<br \/>\nand again sent a reminder on 24.9.1985 but the appellant did<br \/>\nnot  send any reply.  In the other hand the  appellant\tsent<br \/>\nnotice of commencement of construction on 15.10.1985 and on<br \/>\nthat basis is claiming that having not received any order of<br \/>\nrejection  of  the plans within sixty days  as\tcontemplated<br \/>\nunder bye-law No.6.7.4. the appellant had become entitled to<br \/>\ndeemed\tsanction.  We find no force in this submission.\t  As<br \/>\nalready\t mentioned  above, it was necessary  to\t obtain\t the<br \/>\napproval of the DUAC and the DUAC by letter dated  18.9.1985<br \/>\nand 24.9.1985 were seeking certain clarifications  from\t the<br \/>\nappellant.   Bye-law No.6.7.4 of the building bye-law,\t1983<br \/>\nof the Delhi Development Authority reads as under:-<br \/>\n\t &#8220;If  within 60 days of the receipt of notice  under<br \/>\n\t 6.1  of  the  Bye-Laws,  the  authority  fails\t  to<br \/>\n\t intimate  in writing to the person, who  has  given<br \/>\n\t the  notice,  of  its refusal or  sanction  or\t any<br \/>\n\t intimation, the notice with its plan and statements<br \/>\n\t shall\tbe deemed to have been\tsanctioned  provided<br \/>\n\t the  fact is immediately brought to the  notice  of<br \/>\n\t the  Authority\t in writing by the  person  who\t has<br \/>\n\t given notice and having not received any intimation<br \/>\n\t from  the Authority within fifteen days  of  giving<br \/>\n\t such  written\tnotice. Subject\t to  the  conditions<br \/>\n\t mentioned  in\tthis  bay-laws,\t nothing  shall\t  be<br \/>\n\t construed to authorise any person to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       478<\/span><br \/>\n\t do  anything in contravention or against the  terms<br \/>\n\t of lease or titles of the land or against any other<br \/>\n\t regulations, bye-laws or ordinance operating on the<br \/>\n\t site of the work&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     According to the above provision the question of deemed<br \/>\nsanction only arises if within sixty days of the receipt  of<br \/>\nnotice\tunder  6.1 of the bye-laws the\tauthority  fails  to<br \/>\nintimate in writing to the person who has given a notice  of<br \/>\nits  refusal or sanction or any intimation.  In the  present<br \/>\ncase  the D.D.A. had informed the appellant that  the  plans<br \/>\nhad  been  sent to DUAC for approval and the DUAC  was\talso<br \/>\nseeking\t some  clarifications from the\tappellant  by  their<br \/>\nletters\t  dated\t 18.9.1985  and\t 24.9.1985.    The   further<br \/>\nrequirement as contemplated under bye-law 6.7.4. is that the<br \/>\nfact of deemed sanction has to be immediately brought to the<br \/>\nnotice\tof  the authority in writing by the person  who\t has<br \/>\ngiven  notice  and thereafter if no intimation\tis  received<br \/>\nfrom  the  authority within 15 days of giving  such  written<br \/>\nnotice\t the  provision\t of  deemed  sanction\tcomes\tinto<br \/>\noperation.  In\tthe present case the appellant only  sent  a<br \/>\nnotice\tfor commencement of construction on  15.10.1985\t and<br \/>\nthe same in our view does not fulfil the requirement of\t the<br \/>\nnotice which is contemplated under by-law 6.7.4. in as\tmuch<br \/>\nas  intimation\thad  already  been  given  by  DUAC  seeking<br \/>\ninformation. Apart from this the ban on the construction  of<br \/>\nmulti-storeyed buildings came into operation from 17.10.1985<br \/>\nitself\tand in view of this circumstance also there  was  no<br \/>\nquestion  of  the applicability of deemed  sanction  in\t the<br \/>\nfacts of this case. It is not dispute that the building\t has<br \/>\nbeen  constructed  without any sanction or permit  from\t the<br \/>\nD.D.A.\tas  required  under the building  bye-laws  and\t the<br \/>\nbuilding  has been constructed at the risk of the  appellant<br \/>\nunder  the stay order of the High Court.  Clause (B) of\t the<br \/>\nAppendix  &#8220;q&#8221;  of the building bye-laws, 1983  provides\t for<br \/>\ncompoundable items as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     COMPOUNDABLE ITEMS<br \/>\n\t   Deviations  in  terms  of covered  area  &#8211;  If  a<br \/>\n\t building  or  part  thereof  has  been\t constructed<br \/>\n\t unauthorisedly i.e. without obtaining the requisite<br \/>\n\t building  permit  from the  authority\tas  required<br \/>\n\t under clause 6.1 &amp; 6.7.1 of the building  bye-laws,<br \/>\n\t the same shall be compounded at the following rates<br \/>\n\t provided   the\t  building  or\t part\tthereof\t  so<br \/>\n\t constructed  otherwise conforms to  the  provisions<br \/>\n\t contained in the Building Bye-Laws and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       479<\/span><br \/>\n\t Master\/Zonal  Plan  regulations.   For\t this  party<br \/>\n\t shall\thave  to  submit the  request  for  building<br \/>\n\t permit in the prescribed procedure&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Thus  under  the above provision any building  or\tpart<br \/>\nthereof constructed without obtaining the requisite building<br \/>\npermit\tfrom the authority as required under clause 6.1\t and<br \/>\n6.7.1  of  the\tbuilding bye-laws will be  considered  as  a<br \/>\nconstruction  made  unauthorisedly  and\t the  same  can\t  be<br \/>\ncompounded  at the rates mentioned in clause (B).  It is  an<br \/>\nadmitted  position  in\tthe present case  that\tno  building<br \/>\npermit has been given to the appellants till now and as such<br \/>\nthey  are bound to pay the compounding fee according to\t the<br \/>\nrates  prescribed in this regard.  Thus we find no force  in<br \/>\nthe contention of the appellant that they are not liable  to<br \/>\npay any compounding fee.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (iv) So far as charging of interest on the\t compounding<br \/>\nfee is concerned, we are definitely of the view that in\t the<br \/>\nfacts  and  circumstances  of the case\tthe  D.D.A.  is\t not<br \/>\nentitled to charge any interest on the compounding fee.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the result we find no force in these appeals and  we<br \/>\nuphold\tthe  order  of\tthe  High  Court  except  with\t the<br \/>\nmodification  that the D.D.A. is not entitled to charge\t any<br \/>\ninterest  on the amount of compounding fee.  It\t is  further<br \/>\nordered\t that the directions given by the High\tCourt  shall<br \/>\nnow  be\t carried out from the date of the Judgment  of\tthis<br \/>\nCourt instead of the date of the Judgment of the High Court.<br \/>\nThus except the abovementioned modifications, we uphold\t the<br \/>\norder  of the High Court as well as the directions given  by<br \/>\nit.  There will be no order as to costs in this Court.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.R.\t\t\t\t     Appeals Partly allowed.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) &#8230; vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 28 May, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 SCR (3) 465, 1993 SCC Supl. (1) 61 Author: N Kasliwal Bench: Kasliwal, N.M. (J) PETITIONER: ANSAL PROPERTIES &amp; INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. DATE [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-161745","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) ... vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 28 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) ... vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 28 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1992-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-28T11:13:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) &#8230; vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 28 May, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-28T11:13:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992\"},\"wordCount\":4169,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992\",\"name\":\"Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) ... vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 28 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-28T11:13:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) &#8230; vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 28 May, 1992\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) ... vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 28 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) ... vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 28 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-28T11:13:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) &#8230; vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 28 May, 1992","datePublished":"1992-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-28T11:13:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992"},"wordCount":4169,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992","name":"Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) ... vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 28 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-28T11:13:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansal-properties-industries-p-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-28-may-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ansal Properties &amp; Industries (P) &#8230; vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 28 May, 1992"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161745","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=161745"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161745\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161745"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161745"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161745"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}