Binding LBZ guidelines governed plan sanctioning, and deemed sanction could not override approved development norms.

Executive directions on the Lutyens' Bungalow Zone, when issued under the Union's executive power and later incorporated into the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan, acquired binding force and had to be followed by the NDMC when sanctioning building plans. Because the applicable statutory scheme barred approval of plans contrary to approved development norms, refusal of a non-conforming plan was lawful. A deemed sanction could not arise where the plans had been examined and rejected for violating LBZ requirements, and the High Court could not direct endorsement of sanction contrary to those governing provisions. The appeals were allowed and the parties were left free to submit revised plans conforming to the LBZ guidelines.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Lutyens' Bungalow Zone guidelines dated 8.2.1988 and subsequent clarifications had legal force and were binding on the NDMC while considering sanction of building plans; (ii) whether the High Court was justified in holding that the respondents' plans stood deemed sanctioned and in directing endorsement of sanction on the plans.

Issue (i): whether the Lutyens' Bungalow Zone guidelines dated 8.2.1988 and subsequent clarifications had legal force and were binding on the NDMC while considering sanction of building plans

Analysis: The guidelines were issued in the context of the Union's executive power and the statutory scheme governing development of Delhi. The Delhi Development Act, 1957 contemplated Master Plans and Zonal Development Plans approved by the Central Government, and Section 12 barred sanction of plans contrary to approved development norms. The NDMC Act, 1994 placed the Chairperson under the general superintendence, direction and control of the Central Government and permitted refusal of sanction where a plan contravened any law, rule, bye-law or order. The guidelines were reiterated and enforced by the Central Government, and later incorporated in the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan, giving them mandatory character.

Conclusion: The guidelines had legal force and were binding on the NDMC; the refusal to sanction a plan contrary to them was not illegal.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court was justified in holding that the respondents' plans stood deemed sanctioned and in directing endorsement of sanction on the plans

Analysis: The building plans had in fact been examined and refused by the competent authority on the ground that they violated the applicable LBZ norms. A deemed sanction could not be inferred where the statutory framework and approved development plans prohibited approval of a non-conforming proposal. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, could not direct sanction contrary to the governing statutory provisions and approved plans.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in declaring deemed sanction or in directing the NDMC to endorse the plans as sanctioned.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the respondents were left free to submit revised plans conforming to the applicable LBZ guidelines for consideration by the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Executive directions issued by the Central Government for planned development, when supported by the statutory scheme and incorporated into approved development plans, acquire binding force and cannot be disregarded in sanctioning building plans under the municipal law.

---