Holding

Plot E‑25 (new) is not part of any sanctioned layout plan and cannot be built upon; no deemed sanction under Section 337 applies.

Summary

The appellant sought permission to construct on Plot E‑25 (new) in a Delhi cooperative colony. The original layout plan sanctioned in 1958 contained 98 plots; a later resolution mistakenly mentioned 108 plots. After boundary adjustments, the original plots E‑25 and C‑23 ceased to exist, and the society attempted to create additional plots, including E‑25 (new), subject to a revised layout plan that was never approved by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The appellant argued that a building permission granted in 1965 and a deemed sanction under Section 337 of the Municipal Corporation Act gave her a right to the plot. The Court held that the revised layout plan sanctioned in 1964 did not contain Plot E‑25 (new), that the 1965 resolution did not sanction a new layout, and that no deemed sanction could arise for a plot absent from the sanctioned plan. Consequently, construction on the plot would violate Section 337(1). The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the resolution dated 25‑August‑1965 sanctioned the revised layout plan and thereby included Plot E‑25 (new).
Whether a deemed sanction under Section 337 of the Municipal Corporation Act arises when the corporation fails to respond within the prescribed period.
Whether the conditional allotment agreement confers a vested right to the plot despite the lack of a sanctioned layout plan.
Whether the Municipal Corporation can be directed to create an additional plot beyond the 98 plots originally sanctioned.

Legislation cited

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957s. 337, s. 347-D

Subjects

municipal corporationlayout planconditional allotmentbuilding permissiondeemed sanctionSection 337plotDelhimunicipal law

Judgment

~' POON AM A
v.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.

JULY 27, 2000

[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.) B

Municipalities:

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957-Section 337-layout plan
sanctioned by Corporation for 98 plots but stated 108 plots by mistake- c
Plot [E-25) ceased to exist after exchange with neighbour plot-holder for
straightening out irregular boundaries-Revised layout plan sanctioned but
stated the plot as existing by mistake-Additional plots carved out by
Society-Conditional allotment of Plot {E-25 (new)] made to appellant's
mother subject to sanction of revised layout plan for additional plots- D
Revised layout plan rejected-Appellant's mother insiste on regular allotment
by Society of the said plot-mother died-Application/or building permission
on the said plot filed with Corporation by appellant-Permission rejected
as the said plot is not part of sanctioned-layout plan-Appellant's
contention that the said plot is in place of old plot [E-25) which was part
of sanctioned layout plan-Deemed sanction of building plan-Claim of- E
Held, there cannot be deemed sanction as the plot itself is non-existent in
sanctioned layout plan.
J Respondent-Society applied to Respondent-Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (MCD) for sanction of layout plan of 98 plots. MCD, by a Resolution
dated 1-5-1958, sanctioned the layout plan. By mistake, the Resolution F
mentioned 108 plots. The sanctioned lay-out plan had irregular boundaries
as a result of which there was no proper approach road to certain plots which
included plot No. E-25, the plot in dispute. Therefore MCD prohibited building
activities in those plots. The Society, with the permission of MCD, negotiated
with neighbour plot-holder for exchange of certain plots to straighten out G
the boundaries of the Society. As a result, two plots (C-23 and E-25( were
exchanged with the neighbour plot-holder. The Society submitted a revised
layout plan to the MCD for approvaL MCD, by Resolution dated 18.5.1964
permitted exchange of land and sanctioned the revised layout plan. Plot No.
E-25 was mentioned in the Resolution as existing by mistake, which has
.).
709 H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A already ceased to exist the Society after exchange. The Society constructed ~ ,_
roads and applied for building permission on all the plots. MCD, by a
Resolution dated 25-8-1965, permitted the building activities in 98 plots. The
layout plan accompanying the resolution is missing from the records of MCD.
The Society carved out 11 additional plots taking advantage of the mistake
made in Resolution dated 1-5-1958 by MCD which indicated 108 plots instead
B of 98 plots and applied for sanctioning of the revised layout plan. Meanwhile,
the Society issued a circular to the effect that conditional allotment is made
to allottees of additional plots pending sanction of the revised layout plan by
MCD. The Circular also made it clear that if MCD rejected the revised layout
plan, the allottees would get back the money after deduction of expenses.
c Appellant's mother was given a conditional allotment of one of the
additional plots (Plot No. E-25 (new)( under the Circular of the Society. MCD.
by a Resolution dated 14-11-1968, rejected the revised layout plan which
included the additional plots. The Society informed the appellant's mother
about the rejection of the revised layout plan by MCD and to take back the
D deposit amount. The appellant's mother insisted on allotment of the Plot No.
E-25 (new) and refused to take back the money. Later, the Society applied to
· MCD for permission to carve out two new plots (C-35 and C-36( instead of old
plots (C-23 and E-25( which had ceased to exist as a result of exchange with
the neighbour plot-holder. MCD, by resolution dated 29-1-1976, allowed
permission to carve out the new plots. The appellant's mother died in 1977.
E In 1991, the appellant submitted a building plan for approval. MCD rejected
the building plan on the ground that Plot No. E-25 (new) was not a part of
sanctioned layout. The appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal
which was rejected. The Lt. Governor allowed the appeal. MCD filed a Writ
Petition before High Court which was allowed.
F In appeal, the appellant contended that the Resolution dated 25-8-1965
permitted building activity on plot No. E-25; that the layout plan annexed to
the Resolution indicates that the plot existed on that date; that there was
deemed approval under section 337 of the Municipal Corporation Act; that
Plot No. E-25 (new) was in place of Plot No. E-25 (old) and therefore formed
G part of revised layout plan; that the MCD and the Society are suppressing the
layout plan sanctioned by Resolution dated 25.8.1965 which supports the case
of the appellant; and that all the Sale Deeds executed by the Society are
conditional Sale Deeds.

The Respondent-MCD contended that the Society has entered into
H conditional agreement which in respect of additional new plots and not in report 4
POON AM v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 711

.,_" of old plots; that the Resolution dated 29-1-1976 permitting the Society to A
carve out new Plots [C-35 and C-361 in exchange for old Plots [E-25 and C-23)
was never challenged; that nobody filed a complaint that Plot No. E-25 (new)
is the Plot in exchange of the old Plot No. E-25 (New); and that the appellant
cannot ask for building permission on an additional plot, which would make
it to 99 plots.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. MCD, by Resolution dated 25-8-1965, did not sanction the
revised layout plan. The revised layout plan was sanctioned by Resolution dated
18-5-_1964. This showed all plots with numbers as they then existed. The layout
plan would have accompanied the Resolution dated 25-8-1965. but that plan is c
missing. No adverse inference can be drawn against the Society and MCD
because there is sufficient material on record to show that Plot No .. E-25 (new)
is not a part of the revised layout plan which was sanctioned in 1964. The
layout plan annexed to Resolution dated 18-5-1964 clearly shows that there
is no Plot No. E-25 old or new. Yet this Resolution makes mention of Plot No.
E-25 and states that there cannot be any construction on this, amongst other D
plots. Thus it is clear that the Resolution by mistake is merely repeating the
number of plots from the earlier Resolution without having realised that there
was no Plot No. E-25. Thus it is clear that the mistake is carried forward. If
the appellant's Plot No. E-25 (new) existed, it would have been shown in layout
plan. (718-A-B; E-FJ E
1.2. The Society had written to the appellant's mother pointing out that
the revised layout plan showing the additional plots had been rejected by MCD.
If Plot No. E-25 (new) was part of the revised layout plan such a letter would
not have been written by the Society to the appellant's mother. The reply sent
by appellant's mother also shows that she did not consider the plot allotted to F
her, i.e. Plot No. E-25 (new) to be in exchange for Plot No. E-25 (old). Neither
the mother nor the appellant was owner of the old Plot No. E-25. That plot had
ceased to exist much prior to the allotment of Plot No. E-25(new) to the
appellant's mother. At all stages, the appellant's mother and the appellant were
well aware that the Plot No. E-25 (new) was not in substitution of the old Plot
No. E-25 and that the plot was one of the new plots for which sanction would
G
have to be obtained from MCD and that if such sanction was not obtained she
would have no right except to receive back the moneys paid to the Society.
Plot No. E-25 (new) was a new plot which could only be allotted provided
sanction was accorded by MCD. All agreements entered into by the Society

- are not conditional agreements as contended by the appellant [749-B-C, D-G I H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 1.3. In 1958, a layout containing 98 plots was sanctioned. There is no
sanction for more than 98 plots. There are already existing 98 plots in the
society, including Plot No. C-35 and C-36. MCD cannot be directed to create
one more plot The right of the appellant's mother and/or the appellant, if one
existed, was to challenge, sanction of Plots No. C-35 and/or C-36 which has
B never been done. [721-A-Bl

1.4. Plot No. E-25 (new) is not a part of the sanctioned layout plan and
there can be no building activity in the absence of a sanctioned layout plan.
To permit such building activity would clearly be in violation of section 337(1)
of the Municipal Corporation Act. (721-C-D]

c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4246 of 2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.99 of the Delhi High Court in
C.W.P. No. 1460of1994.

Mukul Rohtagi, Addi. Solicitor General, A.N. Parekh, B. Sen, Jaspal
D Singh, Shanti Bhushan, Shyam Kishore, Sushi! Kumar Jain, Rabindra Singh,
Ms. Madhu Tewatia, C.S. Ashri, Shally B. Maheshwari, Rahul Gupta, Rishi
Maheshwari, R.K. Maheswari and A.P. Dhamija for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E S.N. VARIAVA, J.

Leave granted. ,_
•
This Civil Appeal is against the Judgment dated 29th ·January, 1999
~

F passed by the High Court of Delhi. '

Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

One Swatantra· Co-operative House Building Society (hereinafter called
'the Society') had initially applied for sanction of a layout plan. The Standing
G Committee of The Municipal Corporation of Delhi had sanctioned that layout
plan by a Resolution dated 1st October, 1958. That layout plan consisted of
98 plots. However, by mistake it was mentioned in the Resolution that there
were 108 plots. The layout plan which had been sanctioned had irregular
boundaries, as a result of which there was no proper approach road to Plots
Nos. 1,2, 10-15 of Block-Band Plots Nos. 18-25 of Block-E. Therefore, the
H Resolution of 1958 prohibited any building activities on the above mentioned
-
POON AM v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [S.N. VARIAVA,J.) 713
,,, plots. A
Thereafter the Society, with the pennission of the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi, started negotiations with their neighbour i.e. the Central Road
Research Institute, to straighten out the boundaries. As a result of these
negotiations the boundaries of the Society could be straightened out. In
straightening out the boundaries Plot Nos. E-25 and C-23 went to the shares B
of the Central Road Research Institute. Thus, these two plots ceased to exist.
The Society then submitted a revised layout plan to the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi and asked for pennission to exchange lands with the Central Road
Research Institute in order to straighten out the boundaries. The Municipal
Corporation by its Resolution No. 158 dated 8th May, 1964 pennitted exchange
of land and sanctioned the revised layout plan but still prohibited building
c
activities on Plots Nos. 1,2 and I 0 to 15 of 8lock-8 and 18 to 25 of Block-
E. We have seen the revised layout plan which had been submitted for
approval at this stage. It is clear from the revised layout plan that Plot No.
E-25 no longer existed and that there was no plot E-25 (new). Thus, it is clear
that Plot No. E-25 was mentioned in the Resolution by mistake. The reference D
to Plot No. E-25 in this Resolution clearly cannot be to any plot by number
E-25 (New) because at this stage no new plots had been carved out by the
Society.

The Society then constructed roads and applied for pennission to allow
E
building activities on all the plots. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi by
Resolution No. 588 dated 25th August, 1965 pennitted building activities on
Plots Nos. 1,2, 10 to 15 in 8lock-8 and Plots Nos. 18 to 25 in 8lock-E. The
layout plan which should be accompanying this Resolution has been misplaced
in the records of the Municipal Corporation. However admittedly the pennission
to build was restricted to 98 plots only. F
~

In the meantime, taking advantage of the fact that in the Resolution of
1958 the number of plots had been mentioned as 108, carved out additional
plots. The Society issued a Circular dated 21st July, 1965. That Circular set
out that the Society had exchanged -irregular pieces of land on the boundary
of the colony with the Central Road Research Institute as a result of which
G
irregular pieces of land had disappeared and that as a result of this exchange
some more regular plots were being carved out. This Circular made it clear that
a revised layout plan for these new plots would have to be submitted to the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi for sanction and allotment would only be
' ' conditional on sanction of the layout plan being received from the Municipal H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Corporation of Delhi. The Circular also made it clear that in case the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi rejected the revised layout plan or passed it with
modifications, the allottees who would be allotted these new plots, would get
a refund of the deposits after deduction of expenses. The Circular made it
clear that only those persons who accepted this conditions and stipulations
B should apply for allotment of the plots.
The mother of the Appellant accepted these conditions and applied for
allotment of a plot. She gave an undertaking to the Society dated 22nd
September, 1965 stating that she accepted the conditions and stipulations set
out in the Circular dated 21st July, 1965 for the conditional allotment of a plot
C in her favour. The undertaking also mentioned that she had chosen Plot No.
E-25 (new) for "conditional allotment".

The mother of the Appellant was allotted by the Society plot bearing
E-25 (New), Kalindi Colony, by an Agreement dated 7th October, 1965. The
Agreement provides as follows:
D
"WHEREAS THE 'Vendor Society' vide its Circular dated 21. 7.1965
offered for sale to its members, plots of lands, situate in the residential
colony known as 'Kalindi' in the village Kilokri, Ring Road, New ,.
Delhi, on the clear understanding that the revised layout plan of these
plots has not been sanctioned so far, by the Municipal Corporation
E of Delhi, and that the intending purchasers should be prepared to take
the risk that in case the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ultimately
rejects the revised layout plan or passes it with modification, the
intending purchaser is agreeable to take back his money after the
deduction of expenses entailed in this regard;
F AND WHEREAS subject to the conditions and stipulations
contained in the aforesaid circular dated 21.7.1965, the Vendor Society
undertook to sell to the Vendee ALL THAT freehold plot No. 25(New)
Category II Group B measuring 399.93 sq. yds. Situate in Kalindi
Colony in the village Kilokri, within the Union Territory of Delhi
G belonging to and owned by the Society and more fully described in
the Schedule annexed to this deed."

xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
H "7. That the Vendee further agrees that in case the Municipal
'
POONAMv.MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOFDELHl[S.N. VARIAVA,J.) 715

Corporation of Delhi rejects the revised layout plan or passes it with A
modifications, the Vendee will be entitled only to the refund of his
money after deduction of expenses entailed in this regard or will
accept the plot as modified by the Municipal Corporation.

It must be mentioned that the Society carved out 11 additional plots to bring
the total number of plots to I08. The Society sold the additional plots to B
various people (including the mother of the Appellant). All agreements entered
into at this stage were conditional agreements i.e. that they were subject to
the revised layout plan being sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi. We have seen the plan annexed to the Agreement entered into with
Appellant's mother. It shows that old plots E-25 and C-23 are no longer there C
and that over and above the 96 old plots there are 11 additional plots. The
Society again applied to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for sanctioning
the revised layout plan which now included these 11 additional plots. The
Municipal Corporation of Delhi by its Resolution No. 796 dated 14th November,
1968 rejected the revised layout plan and did not permit additional plots. It
was clarified to the Society that what had been approved by the Resolution D
of 1958 were only 98 plots and not I 08 plots.

The Society, therefore, by a letter dated 18th July, 1969 informed the
mother of the Appellant that revised layout plan had been rejected by the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and that even though the Society was making
fresh efforts to get the layout sanctioned, she may apply to the Society for E
getting refund of the cost of the plot paid to the Society, if she so desired.
The mother of the Appellant addressed a letter dated 24th July, 1969 to the
Society, through her husband (who is an Advocate). The letter states that she
was not interested in getting the refund of money and is only interested in
getting the plot which was allotted to her. In the letter it is stated that she F
believes that the Society would make sincere efforts in the matter and utilize
all the resources to get the layout plan sanctioned. Thus, it is to be seen that
the mother of the Appellant does not claim that her Plot No. E-25 (new) is
one of the plots on which building activity had already been sanctioned by
Resolution 588 dt. 25th August, 1965. The mother of the Appellant does not
claim that her plot is not a new plot. The mother of the Appellant does not G
claim that her Plot No. E-25 (New) is in substitution of the old Plot E-25.

The Society thereafter pursued the matter with the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi in order to try and gei the additional plots sanctioned. The Municipal
Corporation of Delhi again rejected the proposal by a Resolution dated 7th
August, 1973. Thus, the revised layout plan containing the additional plots H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A was never accepted or sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

The Society then applied to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi pointing
out that the original Resolution of 1958 sanctioned 98 plots. The Society
pointed out that, due to change in boundaries, two plots viz. E-25 and C-23
B had ceased to exist and, therefore, in their place two new plots bearing Nos.
C-35 and C-36 should be pennitted. The Society claimed that plots bearing
Nos. C-35 and C-36 were substitutes for Plot Nos. E-25 and C-23. The Municipal
Corporation of Delhi by its Resolution dated 29th January, 1976 permitted
carving out of plots C-35 and C-36 in place of old Plots Nos. E-25 and C-23.
This sanction granted by the Municipal Corporation to carve out new Plots
C Nos. C-35 and C-36, in place of old Plots Nos. C-23 and E-25, has never been
challenged by anybody, including the mother of the Appellant. This Resolution
shows that in place of old plots C-23 and E-25 the new plots were C-35 and
C-36.

The mother of the Appellant died in 1977. The Appellant claims that her
D mother's plot has come to her share. The Appellant does nothing from 1977
till 1991. On 21st January, 1991 the Appellant submitted a building plan for
approval in respect of a building on Plot No. E-25 (new). On 7th February,
1991 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi asked the Appellant to supply
certain documents i.e. ownership documents, relevant land tax receipts,
E documents regarding payment of charges etc. The Appellant by letter dated
18th March, 1991 forwarded the documents and also stated that the Plot No.
E-25 (new) was one of the plots on which building activity had been approved
by Resolution No. 588 dated 25th August, 1965. The Appellant received no
reply from the Corporation till 1st August, 1991. On 1st August 1991 the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi rejected the building plan on the ground that
F Plot No. E-25 (new) was not a part of the sanctioned layout. The Appellant
filed an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The grounds urged by her in
the Appeal were, amongst others, that Plot No. E-25 (new) was a part of the
sanctioned layout and that building activity had been pennitted on that plot
by Resolution No. 588 dated 25th August, 1965. The Appellant also contended
G that as no reply had been received within 60 days there was a deemed
sanction by virtue of the provisions of Section 337 of the Municipal
Corporation Act. By a reasoned Order dated 17th July, 1992, the Appellate
Tribunal rejected the Appeal holding that Plot No. E-25 (new) was not a part
of the approved layout plan.

H The Appellant then filed an Appeal under Section 347-D before the
POONAM v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [S.N. VARIA VA,J.) 717

Administrator, i.e. the Lt. Governor. The Lt. Governor by an Order dated 6th A
January, 1994 allowed the Appeal. The Lt. Governor held that there was
deemed approval under Section 337 of the Municipal Corporation Act. The
Lt. Governor also held that Plot No. E-25 (new) was in place of plot No. E-
25 (old) and it, therefore, formed part of the revised layout plan.
\
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi then filed Writ Petition bearing No. B
1460 of 1994 before the High Court of Delhi. By the impugned Judgment dated
29th January, 1999 the High Court agreed with the Lt. Governor that there was
deemed sanction. However, the High Court held that Plot No. E-25 (new) did
not form part of the revised layout plan which had been sanctioned by the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and therefore, no relief could have been C
granted by the Administrator to the Appellant (herein). The High Court held
that to permit construction activity would be contrary to Section 337(2) of the
Municipal Corporation Act which ·provided that no person could erect a
building and execute work so as to convene any of the provisions of the Act
or other law or any bye-law. The High Court held that this necessarily meant
that in cases where a layout plan was necessary and there was no layout plan, D
then construction activity could not be carried out even though there may
have been deemed sanction by virtue of Section 337(1) of the Municipal
Corporation Act. It is this Judgement which has been assailed before us.

Mr. Shanti Bhushan has taken us through the Judgment of the E
Administrator as well as the Judgment of the High Court. He has supported
the Judgment of the Administrator. He has also taken us through the various
Resolutions of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, particularly Resolution
No. 588 dt. 25th August, 1965. He has placed heavy reliance on this Resolution
and submitted that by this Resolution building activity was permitted on Plot
No. E-25. He submitted that the layout plan annexed to this Resolution would F
clearly indicate that on this date Plot No. E-25 (new) existed. He submitted
that the Corporation as well as the Society are suppressing this layout plan
as it would support the case of the Appellant. He pointed various letters
exchanged between the Society and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and/
or the Town Planning Department. He pointed out that all these spoke about G
layout plans. He submitted that these plans are also being suppressed. He
submitted that an adverse inference must be drawn against the Corporation
and it must be held that Plot No. E-25 (new) is in place of old plot No. E-25
and that the permission to build, which had been granted by the Resolution
No. 588of25th August, 1965, also included permission to build on Plot No.
E-25 (new). H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Shanti Bhushan. To be
seen that Resolution No 588 dt. 25th August 1965 did not sanction a revised
layout plan. The revised layout plan was sanctioned by Resolution No. 158
dt. 18th May 1964. This showed all plots with numbers as they then existed.
Undoubtedly a layout plan will have accompaQied Resolution No. 588 dated
B 25th August, 1965 and that plan is missing. However, in our view, no adverse
inference can be drawn against the Society or the Corporation because there
is sufficient material on record to show that Plot No. E-25 (new) is not a part
of the revised layout plan which was sanctioned in 1964.

It must be seen that by the Resolution No. 158 of 1958 layout plan had
C been sanctioned for 98 plots. By mistake in the Resolution 108 plots were
mentioned. It is an admitted position that there were only 98 plots in the
sanctioned layout plan. It is an admitted position that out of these 98 plots,
plot Nos. E-25 and C-23 went to the share of the Central Road Research
Institute at the time when the boundaries were exchanged between the Society
and the Institute. After the exchange of boundaries a revised layout plan was
D sanctioned by the Corporation by its Resolution No. 158 of 8th May, 1964.
The layout plan annexed to this Resolution is available in the record. This
layout plan clearly shows that there were the 96 plots remaining with the
Society. This layout plan clearly shows that at this stage there is no plot E-
25 old or new. Yet this Resolution makes mention of Plot No. E-25 and states
E that there cannot be any construction on this, amongst other, plots. Thus, it
is clear that the Resolution by mistake is merely repeating the number of plots
from the earlier resolution without it being having realised that now there was
no plot No. E-25. Resolution No. 588 dt. 25th August 1965 is merely repeating
the numbers as were mentioned in Resolution No. 158 dt. l 8th May 1964. Thus
it is clear that the mistake in Resolution No. 158 is carried forward to Resolution
F No.588.
That plot No. E-25 has been mentioned by mistake in Resolution No.
588 is further clear from the fact that in 1971, when the Society applied for
changing the location of one plot, i.e. Plot No. 16-B, it sent a copy of the
G revised layout plan, as sanctioned, to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The
Corporation permitted the change of location of Plot No. 16-B. The sanctioned
revised layout plan which has been submitted to the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi at this time is on record. To be remembered that by now Society had
already carved out the additional plots and had sold them to various parties.
By now the Municipal Corporation had refused permission to carve out more
H plots. Thus what had been sent by the Society was the revised layout plan
POON AM v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (S.N. VA RIA VA, J.] 719

which had been sanctioned in 1964 and on basis of which pennission to A
construct had been granted in 1965. If the Appellants plot E-25 (new) existed
it would have been shown in this layout plan. This plan shows that in the
revised layout plan there was no plot E-25 (new).

It must also be remembered that on 18th July, 1969 the Society had
written to the mother of the Appellant pointing out that the revised layout B
plan showing the additional plots had been rejected by the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi. If plot E-25 (new) was part of the revised layout plan
such a letter would not have been written by the Society to the mother of
the Appellant. The reply sent by the mother of the Appellant also shows that
the mother of the Appellant did not consider the plot allotted to her, i.e. Plot C
No. E-25 (new), to be in exchange for Plot No. E-25 (old).

What is also important is that admittedly neither the mother nor the
Appellant were owners of old Plot No. E-25. That plot had ceased to exist
much prior to the Appellant's mother having allotted Plot No. E-25 (new). The
Society, prior to allotting this plot to the Appellant's mother, had by the D
Circular dated 21st July, 1965 made it very clear that after the change of
boundaries some more plots may be available and that allotment of these
plots would only be conditional. The Appellant's mother had given an
undertaking dated 22nd September, 1965 accepting conditional allotment of
Plot No. E-25 (new). She then entered into an Agreement which is an conditional E
agreement as set out hereinabove. The allotment to her was conditional on
a revised layout plan containing additional plots being sanctioned. The
Municipal Corporation of Delhi refused sanction. This was intimated to
Appellants mother in 1969. In 1969 the Appellants mother considered the
allotment of plot E-25 (new) to be conditional and subject to the revised
layout plan being sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Thus, F
at all stages the Appellant's mother knew and accepted the fact that her plot
was one of the new plots for which sanction would have to be obtained from
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and that if such sanction was not obtained
she would have no right except to receive back the moneys paid to the
Society.
G
When it was pointed to Mr. Shanti Bhushan that the Appellant's mother
had entered into a conditional agreement and that the Appellant, who merely
steps into the shoes of her mother, could claim no higher or better rights. He
submitted that all Sale Deeds executed by the Society were conditional sale
deeds. Mr. Shanti Bhushan showed to Court a number of Sale Deeds and H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. I S.C.R .
•
A showed that all Sale Deeds executed by the Society were conditional. However,
it must be remembered that the Society had carved out 11 new plots and had
entered into conditional agreements with all persons who wanted allotment
of those new plots. Those were the agreements which Mr. Shanti Bhushan
was showing to Court. Mr. Rohtagi pointed out to Court that in respect of
plots which were not new plots the Society had entered into Agreements
B which were not conditional agreements. He pointed out that the father and
sister of the Appellant (i.e. the husband and daughter of Appellant's mother)
had also been allotted plots which were part of the revised layout plan as
sanctioned in 1964. Mr. Rohtagi pointed out that those agreements were not
conditional agreements. Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the statement made by
C Mr. Shanti Bhushan across the bar, that all agreements were conditional
agreements was not a correct statement. Mr. Rohtagi is correct. Court has
seen that members of the Appellant's family had themselves entered into
agreements which were not conditional agreements. On a query from Court
Appellant, who was present in Court, confirmed that her father and sister had
D entered into agreements which were not conditional. This made it very clear
that the Appellant's mother and even the Appellant were well aware that Plot
No. E-25 (new) was not in substitution of the old Plot No. E-25 and that Plot
No. E-25 (new) was a new plot which could only be allotted provided sanction
was accorded by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

E In our view, Mr. Rohtagi was also right when he submitted that the
layout plan of the Society could only have 98 plots. He correctly pointed out
that in exchange for old plots Nos. E-25 and C-23 (which had gone away to
the Central Road Research Institute) the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had
by its Resolution dated 29th January, 1976 permitted the Society to carve out
Plot Nos. C-35 and C-36. He submitted, and in our view correctly, that if
F anybody had any grievance to the effect that Plot No. E-25 (new) should have
been the plot in exchange of the old E-25, then a complaint should have been
made at that stage and the request of the Society and the decision of the
Municipal Corporation to permit plot Nos. C-35 and C-36 should have been
challenged at that stage. He points out that the Resolution dated 29th January,
G 1976 and the carving out of plots Nos. C-35 and C-36 in place of Plots Nos.
E-25 and C-23 has never been challenged by anybody. He submits that
admittedly there can be only 98 and the Appellant cannot ask for building
activity to be permitted on an additional plot, which would make it 99 plots.
He also points out, and in our view correctly, that the allottees or owners of
Plots Nos. C-35 and C-36 have not been made parties to any appeal or
H litigation undertaken by the Appellant and that the sanction of those plots
POONAMv.MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOFDELHI[S.N. VARIAVA,J.] 721
by the Municipal Corporation has not been in challenge at any stage. A
In our view, from the above it is clear that in 1958 a layout containing
98 plots was sanctioned. There is no sanction for more than 98 plots. Including
plots C-35 and C-36 there are already existing 98 plots in the Society. The
Municipal Corporation of Delhi cannot be directed to create one more plot.
What the Appellant, in effect, is claiming is directions to the Municipal B
Corporation of Delhi to sanction an additional plot as Plot No. E-25 (new). The
right of the mother of the Appellant and/or the Appellant, if one existed, was
to challenge, sanction of plots C-35 and/or C-36. This has never been done.
Clarified that this Court is not saying that the Appellant or her mother have
a right to challenge sanction of plots C-35 and/or C-36. C
Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the High court was
absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that Plot No. E-25 (new) is not
part of the sanctioned layout plan and that there can be no building activity
in the absence of a sanctioned layout plan. To pennit such building activity
would clearly be in violation of Section 337(1) of the Municipal Corporation D
Act. Under these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere. The Appeal
stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

B.S. Appeal dismissed.