TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (11) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Authority- constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 - hereinafter referred to as Development Act, Under Section 29(2) of the said Act. Large number of such prosecutions were started against various persons owning land and buildings in the different areas of Delhi for the alleged violation of Section 14 of the Development Act. Some of the persons prosecuted challenged the legality of the prosecution by filing Writ Petitions and some by filing Criminal Petitions for the quashing of the conviction or the prosecution. One Writ Petition being Writ Petn. No. 728 of 1970 was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of Hardy and Deshpande, JJ. by their judgment reported in the case of N.K. Vasuraj v. Delhi Dev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1974, another learned Judge of the Delhi High Court sitting singly quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent in the said appeal by his order D/- 19-12-1973 following the decision, of the Full Beach. 5. In the beginning of the judgment, learned Judges constituting the Full Bench have remarked Various other questions have been raised in these petitions which appear to us to be questions of fart including the question " whether the user in the case of any particular building is residential or non-residential either wholly or in part. We are not going into these questions of fact. We are determining these Writ Petitions on the assumption, that the actual user is not residential. The question is whether such user is act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The learned Judges then proceeded to consider whether as a matter of interpretation of and on, reading the Master Plan it could be held that it prescribes particular use of a building belonging to any of the respondents, la other words, whether the Master Play at all has prescribed a use for building in the zones concerned in the various cases. On a consideration of the Master Plan the finding recorded is in the following terms: We do think that either by reason of the provisions regarding uses in use zone mentioned at page 48 onwards of the Master Plan or the land use plan annexed to it, it is not possible to say that the uses of any building distinguished from land in any zone or of the sites of such buildings have been spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with such plan: Provided that it shall be lawful to continue to use upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by Regulations made in this behalf any land or building for the purpose and to the extent for and to which it is being used upon the date on such plan comes into force. 9. The High Court has expressed the view, and it seems to us correctly too, that the inhibition contained in Section 14 comes into play after the coming into operation of any of the plans - in these cases - the Master Plan. On consideration of the other provisions of the Development Act it seems to have rightly opined that the Master Plan may provide not only for user of land as distinguished from building in the various zones but also for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ours in that regard one way or the other. 10. We, however, emphasise that largely it was a question of fact in each case whether the Master Plan had specified a particular use of a particular building and whether the person prosecuted had incurred the penal liability Under Section 29(2) of the Development Act for the alleged violation of the law contained in Section 14. It may be that the determination of the question as to whether the Master Plan has specified a particular use of a particular building will largely depend upon the interpretation and reading of the Master Plan. But to arrive at a correct conclusion various other facts and circumstances will have to be taken into consideration. It was neither expedient nor possible for th....