Permanent change of user turns on first effective application date; deemed sanction fails where plans were actually rejected.

For permanent change of user of Government land, the relevant charge was the land value prevailing on the date of the first effective application; the earlier 1963 correspondence was treated as abandoned because the applicants did not pursue it, so the 1970 application governed and the 1970 rate applied. The municipal authority was also entitled to insist on prior Government consent before sanctioning building plans, and an actual rejection could not be converted into deemed sanction because the statutory conditions of neglect or omission were not met. The discrimination challenge failed, as the later refusals were consistent with the prevailing ban and consent requirement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were entitled to permission for permanent change of user on the basis of the 1963 application and the 1963 land rate, or on the basis of the 1970 application and the 1970 land rate; (ii) Whether the New Delhi Municipal Committee was justified in rejecting the building plans for want of the Government's consent, and whether the plans could be treated as sanctioned by the deeming provision or on the ground of discrimination.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to permission for permanent change of user on the basis of the 1963 application and the 1963 land rate, or on the basis of the 1970 application and the 1970 land rate.

Analysis: The earlier request of 1963 was not pursued. The petitioners did not submit the proposed plans when called upon to do so, remained silent for years, and later approached the authorities only after their residential plans were rejected. On that footing, the 1963 correspondence was treated as abandoned. The first effective application was held to be the letter of 30 December 1970. Applying the Government's own policy on the crucial date for calculating charges, the relevant date was the date of the effective application, and the land value prevailing in 1970 was the proper basis.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the 1963 rate. Permission had to be granted on the basis of the 1970 rate, and the demand based on the 1972 rate was impermissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the New Delhi Municipal Committee was justified in rejecting the building plans for want of the Government's consent, and whether the plans could be treated as sanctioned by the deeming provision or on the ground of discrimination.

Analysis: The land vested in the Government in the sense relevant to the municipal statute, so the Committee could insist on the Government's consent before sanctioning the plans. The refusal was an actual rejection, not a neglect or omission, so the deeming provision did not operate. The statutory fiction could not be extended retrospectively to revive the 1971 position, and estoppel could not override the statute. The materials also showed no discriminatory treatment, because the later rejections were consistent with the prevailing ban and the Government's directive requiring prior consent.

Conclusion: The rejection of the plans was upheld, the deeming sanction argument failed, and the discrimination challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the limited extent of fixing the charges for change of user by reference to the 1970 rate, while the challenge to the municipal rejection of the building plans failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For permanent change of user of Government land, the relevant rate is the land value prevailing on the date of the first effective application, and a rejected plan cannot be converted into a deemed sanction unless the statutory conditions for neglect or omission are satisfied.

---