Lease condition breach and sanctioned-plan deviations were not proved, so statutory discretion could not be displaced by mandamus.

Amalgamation of two allotted plots did not, without proof of sub-division, a second dwelling house, or non-residential use, establish breach of the lease-cum-sale condition prohibiting such conduct. Incomplete construction and deviations from the sanctioned plan also did not amount to a present, irremediable breach, because corrective changes remained possible before completion and occupancy certification. The Supreme Court further held that the High Court should not have quashed the sanctioned plans or compelled the BDA to act for forfeiture or resumption when the statutory authority retained the first-instance discretion to decide breach proceedings after notice and hearing. The appeals were allowed and the High Court judgment was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether amalgamation of the two allotted plots or construction of a multi-storeyed dwelling house violated condition 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement; (ii) whether the incomplete construction and deviations from the sanctioned plan established a present breach of the lease-cum-sale agreement; (iii) whether the High Court was justified in quashing the sanctioned plans and directing the BDA to take action against the allottees.

Issue (i): Whether amalgamation of the two allotted plots or construction of a multi-storeyed dwelling house violated condition 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement.

Analysis: Condition 4 prohibited sub-division of the property, construction of more than one dwelling house, or non-residential use of the dwelling house. The record disclosed no sub-division of either plot and no concluded finding that more than one dwelling house had been constructed on a single plot or that any part had been put to commercial use. Mere amalgamation, even if assumed, was not the same as sub-division and did not by itself establish breach of the clause.

Conclusion: No violation of condition 4 was made out on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the incomplete construction and deviations from the sanctioned plan established a present breach of the lease-cum-sale agreement.

Analysis: The construction was still in progress and no occupancy certificate or completion certificate had been granted. Until that stage, the owner could make corrective changes to bring the building into conformity with the sanctioned plan and building regulations. Deviations noticed by the municipal authority did not, by themselves, establish an irremediable illegality, and the possibility of compliance before occupation remained open.

Conclusion: The incomplete construction and noticed deviations did not establish a present breach warranting the conclusions reached by the High Court.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the sanctioned plans and directing the BDA to take action against the allottees.

Analysis: The power to decide whether to act for breach of the lease and to consider forfeiture or resumption lay with the BDA in the first instance, subject to notice and hearing. The High Court effectively assumed that discretion without sufficient basis and without leaving the statutory authority to act independently. A writ of mandamus cannot ordinarily be used to pre-empt a discretionary statutory decision, particularly where the factual foundation for a concluded breach was absent.

Conclusion: The direction quashing the sanctioned plans and mandating action by the BDA was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's judgment was set aside and the appeals were allowed, as no enforceable breach of the lease conditions or sanction plan was established on the facts then existing, and the statutory authority's discretion could not be supplanted.

Ratio Decidendi: A building under construction may be corrected before completion and occupancy, and absent a concluded breach of the lease condition or sanctioned plan, a court should not displace the statutory authority's discretion by mandating punitive action.

---