TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 898
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ratio (FAR), is stipulated in the relevant chapters of the Master Plan dealing with different kinds of plots uses such as Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Institutional etc. Land being scarce in Delhi and there being a demand for built-up area, the representations received from various bodies and institutes for either allotting more land to them or permit them an additional FAR were given due attention to by the concerned bodies of the Government resulting in a decision taken to enhance the FAR. The terms on which the benefit of additional FAR could be availed of were notified by a Notification dated December 23, 2008, which reads as under:- "DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2008 Fixation of rates to be applied for use conversion, mixed land use and other charges for enhanced FAR arising out of MPD 2021. S.O. 2955(E) - In exercise of power conferred by Section 57 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (61 of 1957), the Delhi Development Authority with the previous approval of the Central Government, hereby makes the following Regulations in pursuance to Notification No.s.O.3432(E) dated 10th October, 2008: S.No. Item Recommendation of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioners depositing additional FAR charges or furnishing bank guarantee the building plans may be sanctioned so that the writ petitioners could affect further construction on the existing lands owned by them. The respondent of LPA No.107/2014 and the writ petitioners in the three captioned petitions chose to deposit the additional FAR charges with Delhi Development Authority, albeit under protest, and obtain sanction for the building plans so that they could construct additional floors on the existing buildings owned by them. In the letters under which they tendered the additional FAR charges they clearly indicated that since a committee had been constituted to revisit the issue of additional charges, payment tendered by them should be treated as subject to the decision taken by the committee or the decision by this Court in the writ petitions filed by a few similarly situated bodies/institutions. 5. For record, the respondent of LPA No.107/2014 deposited Rs. 3,02,91,764/- (Rupees Three Crores Two Lacs Ninety One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Four only). The petitioner of W.P.(C) No.7921/2012 deposited Rs. 1,46,48,700/-(Rupees One Crore Forty Six Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand and S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated July 17, 2012 would evidence that, using the expression "modification", it amended the notification dated December 23, 2008 and the modification was that no additional FAR charges would be recovered from Educational Societies and Health Care as also Social Welfare societies having Income Tax exemption. 8. As regards such institutions/bodies which has filed writ petitions, when the notification dated July 17, 2012 was brought to the notice of the Court, the writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated July 20, 2012. After noting the notification dated July 17, 2012, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:- "In view of the above notification it is absolutely clear that no additional FAR charges are to be recovered from the Educational societies/Health care and Social welfare societies having income tax exemption. As such no additional FAR charges would therefore be recoverable from the present petitioners. If any of the petitioners have made deposits in this Court pursuant to any order passed by this court the same shall be returned to the respective petitioners. In case of any Bank Guarantees that may have been furnished on account of directions of this Court in v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... WP(C) 1149/2013 and the three other writ petitioners filed the above captioned writ petitions. WP(C) 1149/2013 has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated November 22, 2013 which is challenged in LPA No.107/2014. The successor learned Single Judge has referred the three captioned writ petitions to the Division Bench for the obvious reason that as regards a learned Single Judge of this Court the issue has attained finality in view of the decision dated November 22, 2013 passed in WP(C) 1149/2013. Needless to state, if LPA No.107/2014 is allowed the three captioned writ petitions would have to be dismissed and vice versa if the intra-court appeal is dismissed the three captioned writ petitions would have to be allowed. 12. The respondent in the intra-court appeal and the writ petitioners in the three captioned writ petitions had a two-fold point to urge. The first was that the doctrine of fairness required it to be held that the respondent in the intra-court appeal and the three writ petitioners should be entitled to the same benefit which enured to the writ petitioners of the batch of writ petitions which were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court as per the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent activities. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow's backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bed rock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. The principle of law is lex prospicit non respicit : law looks forward not backward. As was observed in the decision reported as Phillips v. Eyre [1870] LR 6 QB 1 a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. 17. To put in layman's language, the basis of the principle against retrospectivity is no more than 'simple fairness', which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in the decision L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. [1994] 1 AC 486. 18. Thus, the rule against presumption against a retrospective o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re thus explainable on the reasoning that society i.e. public generally is affected by the extent of permissible construction and retrospective application would be to the detriment of the public generally and hence a statute not to be applied retrospectively. The same principle explains the decision that where a retrospective operation inflicts a corresponding detriment on some other person or casts an obligation or takes away a vested right the rule against retrospectivity has to be applied. 24. In the instant case the moment the notification dated December 23, 2008 was promulgated, representations were made to do away with the condition of paying extra premium for the extra FAR. A committee was constituted to look into the issue, which decided that for three category of bodies : (i) Educational, (ii) Health Care and (iii) Social Welfare, the additional charges need to be withdrawn. The Central Government accepted the same. The notification dated July 17, 2002 was promulgated. The object of the legislation is to confer a benefit without taking away anybody's vested right and without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally. To conf....