Auction plot bye-law conditions prevail over later floor area ratio claims, and necessary party impleadment is required for writ relief.

For an auctioned plot, a specific bye-law preserving the construction parameters fixed at the time of auction prevails over the general rule that the bye-laws in force on the date of sanction apply. On that basis, the purchaser could not claim the later increased floor area ratio, and relaxation could not be used to override the auction conditions or the planning scheme. The writ relief also could not properly be granted without impleading the Jaipur Development Authority, because the direction sought directly affected its statutory role in sanctioning the building plan and assessing compliance with the bye-laws.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the purchaser was entitled to claim increased floor area ratio under the later building bye-laws despite the auction conditions and the specific auction-plot clause preserving the parameters fixed at the time of auction; (ii) Whether the writ relief could be granted in the absence of the Jaipur Development Authority being impleaded.

Issue (i): Whether the purchaser was entitled to claim increased floor area ratio under the later building bye-laws despite the auction conditions and the specific auction-plot clause preserving the parameters fixed at the time of auction.

Analysis: The auction was held when the applicable parameters fixed the floor area ratio at 1.0, and the sale deed reflected that position. Although the later bye-laws were generally applicable at the time of sanction, they also contained a specific provision for plots sold by auction that the parameters would remain those fixed at the time of auction. The Court held that the general rule as to the relevant date could not override this specific clause. Bye-law 19.5 did not displace bye-law 19.8, and the power of relaxation could not be used to nullify the auction conditions or the object of planned development.

Conclusion: The purchaser was not entitled to claim floor area ratio of 1.75, and the claim was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ relief could be granted in the absence of the Jaipur Development Authority being impleaded.

Analysis: The relief sought necessarily affected the statutory function of the Jaipur Development Authority in sanctioning the building plan and determining compliance with the bye-laws. A direction compelling a particular floor area ratio could not properly be issued without hearing that authority.

Conclusion: The Jaipur Development Authority was a necessary party, and the writ court erred in granting relief without its impleadment.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was unsustainable, and the writ petition failed on merits as well as on the procedural infirmity in the party array.

Ratio Decidendi: Where bye-laws applicable to an auctioned plot contain a specific clause that the construction parameters shall remain those fixed at the time of auction, that specific clause prevails over the general principle that the bye-laws in force on the date of sanction apply, and the court cannot invoke relaxation or equity to override it.

---