Union of India & Anr v. Edward Keventer

order which involves civil consequences...must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice". What are civil consequences? The question was posed and answered by this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 405, 440, 441 Krishna Iyer J., speaking for the Constitution Bench said (at p. 308-309) : (SCC p.440, para 66) But what is a civil consequence, let us ask ourselves, by passing verbal booby-traps? "Civil consequences" undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation, everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. The learned Judge then proceeded to quote from Black's Legal Dictionary and to consider the interest of a candidate at a Parliamentary election. He finally said: (SCC p.441, para 66) The appellant has a right to have the election conducted not according to humour or hubris but according to law and justice. And so natural justice cannot be stumped out on this score. In the region of public law locus standi and person aggrieved, right and interest have a broader import."

¶32In K. Shyam Kumar (supra), their Lordships held as follows: "22. Judicial review conventionally is concerned with the question of jurisdiction and natural justice and the court is not much concerned with the merits of the decision but how the decision was reached. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service, 1985 AC 374e (GCHQ Case), the House of Lords rationalized the grounds of judicial review and ruled that the basis of

judicial review could be highlighted under three principal heads, namely, illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality. Illegality as a ground of judicial review means that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making powers and must give effect to it. Grounds such as acting ultra vires, errors of law and/or fact, onerous conditions, improper purpose, relevant and irrelevant factors, acting in bad faith, fettering discretion, unauthorized delegation, failure to act, etc., fall under the heading "illegality". Procedural impropriety may be due to the failure to comply with the mandatory procedures such as breach of natural justice, such as audi alteram partem, absence of bias, the duty to act fairly, legitimate expectations, failure to give reasons, etc."

¶33Keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is to be borne in mind that in a case of the present nature, the balance is required to be struck. True it is, the appellants have put forth a ground of security but it is not disputed that there are residential premises in the said area and the Master Plan of Delhi permits thus. It is the duty of the Court to do justice by promotion of honesty and good faith. That is the sacrosanctity of justice. The Court is under obligation to exercise the said power that lies within its domain. Therefore, we are disposed to think that the cause of justice would be best subserved if the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing deposition of conversion charges and grant of approval is

set aside with a direction that the appellant shall afford an opportunity of hearing with regard to the purpose of user, which relates to security measure and take a final decision within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed today. We may hasten to clarify that we have thought it appropriate to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondent as we have been apprised that the Master Plan permits the user for residential areas and there are many other residential premises in the area. Possibly there may be certain restrictions or constrictions. In this regard, we are not in a position to express our opinion but leave it to the authorities to deal with it with total objectivity by following the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUNE 03, 2011

SANJIV KHANNA, J. pk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 2nd May, 2011 % Judgment Pronounced on: June 03, 2011 + LPA No. 470/2010 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, ASG with Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Advs. Versus EDWARD KEVENTER ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Mr.Shaunak, Mr. Bikash Mohanty, Ms.Mandeep Kaur, Mr.Umesh Agarwal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ In this Letters Patent Appeal, the legal acceptability and pregnability of the order dated 6th May, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.13872/2009 is called in question. Sans unnecessary details, the essential facts which are to be exposited are that the respondent-writ petitioner (hereafter referred to as the respondent-petitioner), M/s Edward Keventer (Successors) Pvt. Ltd. (EKSPL), invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 3rd February, 1998 issued by the Land & Development Office (L&DO), Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Government of India withdrawing the earlier letter dated 24th July, 1992 for the re-development of the property situate in Block No.48, Diplomatic Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi and the letter dated 25th August, 2009 issued by the L&DO disallowing the respondent"s application for change of land use from Dairy Farm to Residential Group Housing in respect of the property in question. 2. It was averred in the writ petition that on 16th October, 1920, the Secretary of State for Indian Council executed a perpetual lease deed in favour of one Edward Keventer of Aligarh Dairy Farm in respect of the property in question admeasuring 22.95 acres. On 3rd August, 1942, the said Edward Keventer assigned the aforesaid land to the respondent- EKSPL. On 11th February, 1970, the respondent requested for permission to use the property in question for construction of ownership flats. It was pointed out that out of 22.95 acres, only 4 acres were used for the dairy farm. By communication dated 24th July, 1992, the L&DO granted permission for conversion of land use and the respondent was called upon to pay the conversion charges amounting to Rs.8.5 Crores approximately. By letter dated 5/6 August, 1992, the respondent conveyed the acceptance and paid Rs.2.8 Crores towards the part payment of the conversion charges. On 23rd November, 1992, the respondent was informed by the L&DO that it would be given one month"s extension to comply with the terms of conversion offered by the letter dated 24th July, 1992. Thereafter, certain correspondence went on between the parties regarding payment of the balance conversion charges. On 11th January, 1995, the Ministry of Urban Development, Lands Division, issued revised orders rationalizing and simplifying the conversion charges and other terms for group housing and/or commercial complexes. It is worth noting, on 30th January, 1995, the respondent applied for rationalization of conversion charges enclosing the calculations in terms of the said revised orders. A claim was put forth that it was entitled to refund of Rs.1,54,53,150.64 being the excess payment already made. 3. As certain cavil arose with regard to the conversion charges, by letter dated 3rd February, 1998, the present appellant withdrew the earlier letter dated 24th July, 1992 allowing the conversion of the land use to residential. Being dissatisfied with the said communication, the respondent preferred WP(C) No.3509/2001 and sought a mandamus to the appellants to re-compute the conversion charges as per their policy. On 31st May, 2006, the said writ petition was disposed of permitting the respondent to m