SC holds land owning agency as a necessary party

New Delhi, Jan 30 (UNI) In an important ruling, the Supreme Court has held that the land owning agency is a necessary party in any legal proceeding seeking benefit of subsequent amendment in building bye-laws.

The ruling was handed down by a bench comprising Justices H K Sema and P K Balasubramanyan while allowing the appeal of State of Rajasthan against the state high court judgement holding that Jaipur Development Authority(JDA) was not a necessary party in a writ petition seeeking the benefit of increased floor area ratio.

The respondents, H V Hotels Pvt Ltd, had purchased land measuring 10,490 sq mtr throgh auction sales by JDA on February 14, 1996 for constructing a five star hotel in the pink city.

The area of 1510 sq meter was to be surrendered by the purchaser free of cost for widening of an existing road.

The purchaser later was given permission to construct a multi-purpose commercial complex instead of hotel on november 27, 2001.

Meanwhile JDA promulgated new building bye-laws increasing the floor area ratio from 1 to 1.75. When the purchaser made a representation seeking permission for additional floor area ratio the same was rejected by the state. Rajasthan High Court, however, allowed the writ petition filed by the purchaser against rejection of his representation.

The apex court, while setting aside the high court judgement, observed ''the purchaser in fact was able to get the landuser changed, not withstanding the original stipulation. it is not necessary now to consider whether it was proper to permit such change of user. But merely because subsequently the bye-laws have been amended, it does not mean that the parameter should be relaxed in favour of the purchaser.

That would be clearly an erroneous approach to the questiion of relaxation and assumption of such a power would mean the nullificatiion of building rules themselves and the objects sought to be achieved by the building rules and the need to have planned development of cities and towns in the interest of posterity.'' The court concluded by saying building regulations are in public inrterest. Courts have a duty to protect public interest particularly when they do not interfere with any of the fundamental right of the purchaser. JDA was the sanctioning authority and high court failed to notice that the effect of the direction issued by it, is to fetter the statutory power granted to jda by compelling it to sanction the particular floor area ratio without examining the claim.

UNI