High Court rules for Cancer Research Institute in dispute over FAR charges by DDA, orders refund.

The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a Cancer Research Institute, in a case challenging additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) charges imposed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The court held that a clarificatory notification exempting educational and healthcare societies from these charges should have retrospective effect, as supported by past court decisions. The court quashed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's order and directed the refund of the charged amount to the petitioner, emphasizing the principle of parity and the retrospective operation of the notification.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Challenge to additional FAR charges for institutional plots under DDA Notifications, refund of charges by SDMC, retrospective effect of clarificatory Notification dated 17.07.2012, applicability of past court decisions to current case.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Additional FAR Charges:
The petitioner, a Cancer Research Institute, challenged the levying of additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) charges by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for institutional plots, including hospital plots. The DDA imposed these charges based on specific notifications, exempting only certain institutions allotted land at a nominal rate. The issue was previously challenged in a batch of writ petitions, resulting in a clarificatory notification exempting educational and healthcare societies with income tax benefits from these charges.

2. Refund of Charges by SDMC:
During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) demanded a substantial sum from the petitioner as additional FAR charges. Despite a court order directing refunds in similar cases, the SDMC declined the petitioner's representation for a refund, citing the prospective nature of the notifications. The petitioner sought a refund based on the retrospective operation of the clarificatory notification dated 17.07.2012.

3. Retrospective Effect of Clarificatory Notification:
The petitioner contended that the clarificatory notification should have a retrospective effect, as upheld in previous court decisions. The High Court, citing past judgments, including one affirmed by the Supreme Court, acknowledged the retrospective nature of the notification. The court set aside the SDMC's order and directed the refund of the charged amount to the petitioner within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the doctrine of parity and the retrospective operation of the notification.

4. Applicability of Past Court Decisions:
The High Court considered previous judgments, including one challenged in the Supreme Court, which upheld the retrospective application of the clarificatory notification. The court emphasized the petitioner's entitlement to relief based on the principle of parity with similarly situated entities benefiting from past court decisions. The court's decision to quash the SDMC's order and order a refund underscored the legal significance of the retrospective operation of the clarificatory notification.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment favored the petitioner, recognizing the retrospective effect of the clarificatory notification and ordering the refund of charges by the SDMC. The decision highlighted the importance of legal principles, past court decisions, and the equitable treatment of entities in similar circumstances.

---