http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA  AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DEV RAJ GUPTA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/10/1990

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1991 AIR   93            1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 300  1991 SCC  (1)  63        JT 1990 (4)   176  1990 SCALE  (2)794

ACT:     Delhi   Development   Act,    1957:   Section    7--Town planning--Master Plan--Land leased by Government--Conversion of  user-Residential  to  commercial--Application   and  en- quiry--Difference     between--Absence     of     prescribed form--Relevance  of-- levy of conversion  charges--Reckoning of   relevant   date--Region  in  which  the   leased   land situated--Declared to be commercial zone--Land user--Whether results in automatic and statutory conversion.

HEADNOTE:     The  land in this case was leased by the  Government  to one R in 1931 and a regular lease deed was drawn in 1938. It was a perpetual lease. The lessee constructed a  residential building  on the land, and assigned the lease in  favour  of one L. On the death of L, the interest in the lease devolved on  the respondents. Respondent No. 1 sent a letter  through his Advocate to the Land & Development Officer, stating that he proposed to construct a multi-storeyed building demolish- ing  the  bungalow  and demanding to know  the  charges  for conversion  of the land use from residential  to  commercial purposes.  The Land & Development Officer replied  that  the letter  was receiving attention. Actually the names  of  the respondents were mutated in the property register after  the exchange  of the above letters. However, no application  for conversion  of the land user was made on behalf of the  les- sees of the land.     Again  in 1978 the parties sent a letter to the  Land  & Development  Officer  demanding to know the terms  for  con- struction of a commercial building on the lease land and the charges  to be paid for the same. The  Assistant  Settlement Commissioner sent a reply requesting that a formal  applica- tion  be made in the prescribed proforma for  permission  to construct multi-storeyed commercial building duly signed  by all  the  co-lessees.  In 1980 a reminder was  sent  to  the parties. Only thereafter the parties filed an application in the  prescribed form. In 1984, the Government intimated  the parties  that  it was willing to comply  with  the  request, provided the parties were willing to abide by certain  terms and conditions in advance. The  parties  made a representation to the Works  &  Housing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Minis- 301 ter  requesting for reconsideration of the terms and  condi- tions.  After a good deal of correspondence  the  Government rejected  the  representation. Thereafter  the  parties  ap- proached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition  challeng- ing  the terms and conditions imposed by the Government.  It was  contended  that since they applied  for  permission  to convert  the user of land on 15.2.1978, they were liable  to pay  charges  calculated with reference to that  date  only; that no charges for misuse of the land could be levied after 15.2.1978; that no interest could be charged on the  alleged additional  premium  which  was calculated  by  taking  into consideration  May 25, 1981 as the base date. Accepting  the contentions,  the High Court held that there was no need  to make  any  application for conversion after  1962  when  the Master Plan was prepared by the Delhi Development  Authority declaring  the  region  as a commercial zone  and  that  the conversion was automatic and statutory. The High Court  held that the Respondents were not,obliged to make the payment of conversion  charges calculated at rates prevalent in  April, 1984  instead of the rates obtaining in February,  1978.  It directed the Government to recompute the additional  premium and other charges.     Aggrieved  by  the High Court Judgment,  the  Government preferred  the present appeal. The same contentions as  were raised in the High Court were advanced before this Court, by both the parties. Allowing the appeal, this Court,     HELD:  1. The land has to be used as per  the  agreement between  the contracting parties, and no change of the  user can  be  made contrary to the agreement even if  the  Master Plan permits such user. The Plan helps the parties to change the  user, if the parties mutually agree to do so.  It  does not permit the occupant to change the user unilaterally.  It is not, therefore, correct to say that no permission of  the landlord was needed to change the user of the land. The High Court is not right in holding that there was an automatic or a  statutory conversion of the user of the land  because  in the Plan the land in question fell in the area reserved  for commercial use. The High Court failed to appreciate that the change  of user of the land permitted by the Plan  was  only enabling  in  nature. It lifted the  restriction  which  was otherwise  there for using the land for commercial  purpose. [312B-C & A]     2.  All that the parties wanted to know from the Land  & Development  Officer were the terms and conditions  for  the construction  of a commercial building on the land  and  the charges  to be paid for the same. This can hardly be  called an application for permission to con- 302 struct a commercial building on the land. It is no more than an enquiry. It is immaterial in this connection whether  any regular  form of application was prepared and was  available for use at the relevant time. Even assuming that such a form was  prescribed  for the first time on June  15,  1978,  the letter of February 15, 1978 could hardly be described as  an application  signed by the lessees-meaning thereby  all  the lessees--for permission to convert the user of the land. The absence  of a prescribed form does not make the  letter  the required  application.  The  least that is  expected  in  an application for the purpose is a request by all the  lessees to permit the change of the user of the land showing  readi- ness  and willingness to abide by the terms  and  conditions for such conversion or the user. The letter in question,  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

the  other hand, did nothing more than make an enquiry  sug- gesting  that  the application for the change  of  the  user would  be made after the terms and conditions including  the charges for the same are known. Thus, the letter of February 15,  1978 was not an application made for the change of  the user of the land. [309F-H; 310A-B]     3.  It is clear from the authority’s letter dated  March 1,  1980 that different persons were seeking permission  for change  of  the user of the land and some of them  were  not even  the  co-lessees of the land. Since there was  no  firm application by the authorised person or persons for  conver- sion  of  the user of the land the authority had  asked  the lessees to sent the application in the prescribed form  duly signed  by  all the co-lessees. There was no reply  to  this letter of March 1, 1980 and hence a reminder was sent by the authority  on June 3, 1980 warning the lessees that in  case no  reply was received from them within 15 days, the  matter would be treated as closed. It is pursuant to this  reminder that on February 27, 1981 a letter accompanied by an  appli- cation in the prescribed form was sent, and both the  letter as  well  as the prescribed form were duly  signed  for  the first time by all the co-lessees. The contents of the accom- panying  letter make it clear that even the lessees  treated this application as the first duly-made application for  the purpose.  As has been stated in the application,  the  plans for  the construction of the commercial building were  sanc- tioned  only on January 21, 1981 and the exemption  applica- tion made to the competent authority under Section 20(1)  of the  Delhi Development Act, 1957 was even then  still  under process.  It  is in response to this  application  that  the sanction  was given by the authority on January 12, 1984  to convert the user of the land. Thus, it was only on  February 27,  1981 that an application for the change of the user  of the land was made by or on behalf of the  respondent-lessees of the land. [310G-H; 311A-D] 4. There is no explanation given by the appellants as to why the 303 application made by the respondents on February 27, 1981 was not  replied to till January 12, 1984. Hence in the  absence of  anything else on record, it will have to be  taken  that the date with reference to which conversion charges have  to be counted is 27th February, 1981. [311E]     5.  The additional premium should be calculated  by  the appellants  on the basis of the rate which was prevalent  as on  February 27, 1981 which is the date of  the  application made  for  the change of the user. The  interest  should  be charged  on such additional premium w.e.f. 12th April,  1984 since  a  period of three months from the  date  of  notice, viz.,  January  12, 1984 was available  to  the  respondent- lessees  to make the payment of the additional premium.  The respondent-lessees  would  not be entitled  to  convert  the present user of the land into the commercial user uniess and until the last of the three annual installments of the addi- tional  premium together with the interest thereon is  paid. [312C-E]     6.  The  respondents will further be liable to  pay  the misuse  charges mentioned at items 6 and 7 of the notice  of 12.1.1984 till 12th April, 1984 from which date, they  would be paying the conversion charges. [312F]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1996  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

1990.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 14.9.  1989  of  the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 2038 of 1988.     T.S. Krishnamurthy Ayer, T.V.S.N. Chari and C.V. Rao for the Appellants. Ashok Grover and V.N. Kaura for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SAWANT,  J. This appeal raises some questions which  are important  both for the Delhi Administration as well as  for their  lessees  of land. Shortly stated, the  questions  in- volved are: (a) what constitutes an application for  permis- sion  to convert the user of the land? (b) from  which  date the conversion charges are leviable? and (c) from which date interest is chargeable on the conversion charges?     2.  The  land  involved in the present ease  is  at  20, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and admeasures about 0,956  acre. It was leased by 304 the  Governor  General in Council to one Smt.  Rama  Bai  on November  17, 1931. The regular lease-deed was drawn  up  in 1938.  It  was  a  perpetual lease given  on  a  premium  of Rs.8,000  at the annual rent of Rs.400. Smt. Rama  Bai  con- structed  a  residential building on the land.  On  May  20, 1938,  Smt.  Rama Bai assigned the lease in favour  of  Smt. Leelawati who died on November 6, 1969. The interest in  the lease devolved on respondents 1-4 and one Hans Raj Gupta and their  names  were  mutated in the record of  rights  as  is evidenced by the Government Memo of November 21, 1977.  Hans Raj  Gupta died on July 31, 1985. Respondents 5-11  are  his heirs  and legal representatives. It appears that  Hans  Raj Gupta  had left a will. It is the subject matter of  probate proceedings in Suit No. 62 of 1985 which is being contested. If  the  will is probated then share of the  late  Hans  Raj Gupta will devolve upon respondents 6-9; otherwise, it  will devolve  on all his heirs, viz., respondents 5-11.  For  the purpose  of the questions to be answered in this appeal,  we are not much concerned with the revolution of property after the death of late Hans Raj Gupta.     3.  In September 1962, the Delhi  Development  Authority prepared  a  Master Plan for Delhi under Section  7  of  the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as  the "Act").     4. Before the names of respondents 1-4 and the late Hans Raj Gupta were mutated in the property register on  November 21,  1977, a letter was written on April 25, 1977 by one  of the lessees--to be precise, by the first respondent, through an advocate, to the Land & Development Officer which read as follows: ".   ....   My client Shri Dev Raj Gupta son  of  late  Smt. Leela Gupta proposes to construct a multi-storeyed  building on the above mentioned plot. Please let me know the charges, if any, payable for conversion of the land use from residen- tial to commercial for constructing a multi-storeyed commer- cial building on the said plot after demolishing the  exist- ing bungalow constructed on the above said plot.           Your early response in the matter shall highly  be appreciated. Thanking you, We do not have on record reply, if any, sent to this letter. But it 305 appears  that there was some letter of the same date,  viz., April 25, 1977 addressed by "the heirs and executors" of the estate of late Smt. Leelawati Gupta, C/o Shri Prem  Shankar, Advocate,  i.e., the very same advocate who had written  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

letter earlier alluded to on behalf of the first respondent, and  a reply was given by the office of the Land &  Develop- ment  Officer on July 29, 1977 to this letter of the  "heirs and  executors etc." stating therein that their  letter  was receiving  attention. What that letter was has not  come  on record.  The  only  development thereafter  was,  as  stated earlier,  the Government Memo of November 21, 1977  communi- cating  that  the names of respondents 1-4 and of  the  late Hans Raj Gupta were mutated in the property register against the leased land. It may be mentioned here that this  Govern- ment  Memo  was  addressed to the late Hans  Raj  Gupta  and respondents  1-4 care of the said Advocate, Shri Prem  Shan- kar.  We are informed at the Bar that the request  for  such mutation  was  made on October 12, 1972 on the  basis  of  a partition deed of December 15, 1970 after the death of  Smt. Leelawati  on November 26, 1969. What is important  to  note from the developments so far, as tar as the issues  involved in  this  appeal are concerned, is that no  application  for conversion of the land was made on behalf of the lessees  of the land.     5.  On February 15, 1978, the late Hans Raj  Gupta,  for himself  and "Dev Raj Gupta and others", wrote a  letter  to the Land & Development Officer stating therein as follows:          "Under the Master Plan and the Zonal Plan the above plot  now residential can be developed for the  construction of a Commercial building.          Please  let me know your terms in  respect  thereof together with commercialisation charges that will have to be paid by us.          The  plans  have  already  been  submitted  to  the N.D.M.C. after their approval by the Urban Land Art  Commis- sioner.                                   Yours faithfully,                                                S/-d                                      Hans Raj Gupta                                 for Hans Raj Gupta,                           Dev Raj Gupta and Others" 306             We  have then on record a letter dated March  1, 1980     by  the Assistant Settlement  Commissioner  to  the lessees as follows: S/Shri Hans Raj Gupta, Dev Raj Gupta, Prem Raj Gupta Pardeep Kumar Gupta, C/o Shri Hans Raj Gupta, 3-Ratendon Road, New Delhi.          Sub: Premises situated on Plot No. 5, Block No. 205 known as 20-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Dear Sir,           I  am to say that the applications in  respect  of the above mentioned premises received so far from  different persons  (some of them are not co-lessees) to intimate  con- version  charges  for  the  construction  of  Multi--stroyed Commercial building and your intention to sell the  property to  M/s. Central Investment (P) Ltd. and the  United  Towers India  (Pvt.) Ltd. but rejection of the same by *.he  Compe- tent authority under Urban (Ceiling & Regulation) Act,  1976 have created some doubts about that ownership. It has there- fore  been decided that a fresh application for the  permis- sion to construct the Multi-storeyed Building duly signed by all the co-lessees be asked for.           You arc therefore requested to make an application in  the prescribed proforma for the permission to  construct the  Multi-storeyed Commercial building duly signed  by  all the co-lessees.                          Yours faithfully,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

                        S/d      Encl. As above.     (R.L. Gupta)                          Asstt. Settlement Commissioner".     On  June 3, 1980, a reminder was sent by the  Government to  the late Hans Raj Gupta and respondents 1-4 which  reads as follows:      "  .....   I  am to refer to  this  Office  Letter  No. LI--9/205(5)/ 307 80/197  dated 1.3.1980 on the above subject and to say  that no reply thereto has to far been. (sic.)           In  case no reply is received from you  within  15 days  from the said date of receipt on this letter, then  it will be presumed that you are not interested for the permis- sion to construct the multi-storeyed Commercial Building and the case will be treated as closed  .....  "     To  this reminder, the late Hans Raj Gupta replied  that the letter of March 1, 1980 sent by the Government  appeared to  have been lost in transit and did not reach their  hands and requested for a duplicate of the same to enable them  to take necessary steps. The Government by its letter of August 11,  1980  sent a copy of its letter of March  1,  1980  and along  with  it  also sent to the late Hans  Raj  Gupta  and others a show cause notice dated May 31, 1980 which had also been  received back by the Government undelivered.  Thereaf- ter, on February 27, 1981, the late Hans Raj Gupta, and  one Raj  Kumar Gupta as a constituted Attorney  for  respondents 1-4,  sent  an application in the prescribed  form.  In  the accompanying letter of the same date, if was mentioned  that the application was sent with reference to the Land & Devel- opment Officer’s letter dated March 1, 1980 and the  discus- sions held in his office on February 9, 1981 for  permission to  construct a multi-storeyed building. All that is  neces- sary  for us to note from the contents of  the  application- form  is  firstly that it was mentioned  there  against  the relevant  query  that the plan for  constructing  commercial building was sanctioned on January 21, 1981 by the New Delhi Municipal  Committee  and that exemption  application  under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)  Act, 1976  was being processed. On January 12, 1984, the  Govern- ment  intimated to the parties that with reference to  their letter of February 27, 1981 seeking permission for construc- tion  of  multi-storeyed commercial  building,  the  lessor, i.e.,  the  Government was willing to  consider  their  said request provided they were willing to comply with the  terms and conditions mentioned therein full in advance. The  terms and  conditions  mentioned in this  communication  included, among  other  things, the payment of additional  premium  of Rs.1,77,31,548  in  jumpsum and payment of interest  on  the additional  premium at 10 per cent per annum from 27th  May, 1981 to 14th July, 1983 being Rs.37,84,349.55 and from  15th July,  1983 to the date of payment, at Rs.  1,47,762.90  per month.  The other terms and conditions imposed by  the  said letter  are not in dispute and, therefore, they need not  be reproduced here. 308     6.  On receipt of this letter, the late Hans  Raj  Gupta and other lessees made a representation on March 31, 1984 to the  Works  & Housing Minister of the  Government  of  India requesting  reconsideration  of  the  terms  and  conditions imposed in the Government’s letter of permission of  January 12, 1984. It appears that thereafter there was a correspond- ence  between  the parties which finally culminated  in  the Government’s letter of June 12, 1987 which virtually reject- ed  the representations of the lessees. Further  representa-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

tions were made thereafter for reconsideration of the  terms and  conditions offered by the Government for conversion  of the use of the leased land but it appears that they were not replied  to. The result was that the lessees approached  the High  Court by a writ petition challenging  the  appellant’s letter dated June 12, 1987 reiterating the terms and  condi- tions which were intimated earlier by the letter of  January 12, 1984.     7.  The main challenge in the petition was to  the  base year  for the calculation of the charges for  conversion  of the land from the residential to the commercial purpose.  It was  the contention of the petitioners that since  they  had applied  to  the respondents for permission to  convert  the user  on February 15, 1978, they were liable to pay  charges calculated  with reference to the said date and not  as  the respondents  had done with reference to May  25,1981.  Their second  contention was that for the same reason  no  charges for  the misuse of the land could be levied  after  February 15,  1978  and their third contention was that  no  interest could be charged on the alleged additional premium which was calculated by taking into consideration May 25, 1981 as  the base  date. The High Court accepted all the said three  con- tentions  by holding that the date with reference  to  which the conversion charges had to be calculated was February 15, 1978  when according to the court the respondents  had  duly applied for conversion of the user. The High Court also held that in fact there was no need to make any such  application for conversion after September 1962 when the Master Plan was prepared  by the Delhi Development Authority  declaring  the region in which the leased land was situate as a  commercial zone.  According  to the court, there was an  automatic  and statutory conversion of the use of the land from residential to  commercial  purpose and hence there was no  question  of either payment of conversion charges or the misuse  charges. In  this view of the matter the court held that  the  demand which had been made by the appellants for conversion charges calculated on the basis of the rate prevalent in April, 1981 instead  of the rate prevalent on February 15, 1978 was  not in accordance with law and the respondents were not  obliged to make the payment pursuant to an invalid demand. The  High Court, therefore, quashed the 309 demand  for conversion charges contained in  the  appellants letters dated January 12, 1984 and June 12, 1987 and direct- ed  the appellants to recompute the additional  premium  and other  charges within a period of six months  in  accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made by it. It is this decision which is challenged in this appeal.     8.  While  narrating the facts we have referred  to  the alleged  application  made by the respondents  or  on  their behalf  on April 25, 1977 and February 15, 1978.  Since  the respondents do not contend that their alleged application of April 25, 1977 was an application for conversion of the user of  the  land, it is not necessary for us to deal  with  the same.  However,  since it is contended vehemently  on  their behalf  that  the  application of February 15,  1978  was  a proper  application for conversion of the user of  the  land and  the  High  Court has also accepted it as  such,  it  is necessary  to deal with the same. The contents of  the  said application  have been reproducted above. In the  first  in- stance, this application was sent by the late Hans Raj Gupta for  himself  and for "Dev Raj Gupta and others".  The  late Hans Raj Gupta did not sign it for Dev Raj Gupta and  others as  the holder of the  power of attorney from them. Nor  did he make clear who "the said others were". The lessees of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

property at that time were Dev Raj Gupta Prem Raj Gupta  and Pradeep Kumar Gupta in addition to the late Hans Raj  Gupta. Neither the said letter was signed by Dev Raj Gupta Prem Raj Gupta and Pradeep Kumar Gupta nor was it stated any where in the letter that they had authorised the late Hans Raj  Gupta to  seek permission on their behalf. As far as the  contents of the letter are concerned, they are self-explanatory.  All that  the late Hans Raj Gupta wanted to know from  the  Land and  Development Officer were the terms and  conditions  for the  construction of a commercial building on the  land  and the  charges that would have to be paid for the  same.  This can  hardly be called an application for permission to  con- struct a commercial building on the land. It is no more than an  enquiry.  We are, therefore, unable  to  appreciate  the contention  that this letter constituted an application  for permission  to use the land for commercial purposes.  It  is for  this reason that we are unable to agree with  the  High Court’s finding that this letter was an application for  the conversion of the-user of the land. It is immaterial in this connection  whether  any  regular form  of  application  was prepared  and was available for use at  the  relevant  time. Even assuming that such a form was prescribed for the  first time on June 15, 1978, the letter of February 15, 1978 could hardly be described as an application signed by the lessees, meaning  thereby, all the lessees for permission to  convert the user of the land. 310 The  absence of a prescribed from does not made  the  letter the  required application. The least that is expected in  an application for the purpose is a request by all the lesseess to permit the change of the user of the land showing  readi- ness  and willingness to abide by the terms  and  conditions for such conversion of the user. The letter in question,  on the  other hand, did nothing more than make an enquiry  sug- gesting that the application for the change of the would  be made  after the terms and conditions including  the  charges for  the same are known. We are, therefore,  satisfied  that the letter of February 15, 1978 was not an application  made for the change of the user of the land.     9.  It is for this very reason that we are of  the  view that  it was for the first time on February 27, 1981 that  a proper  application  was made for the purpose. As  has  been pointed  out hereinabove, after the letter of  February  15, 1978 addressed by the late Hans Raj Gupta and others to  the authority,  we  have on record only the letter of  March  1, 1980 addressed by the authority to Hans Raj Gupta and others pointing  out that applications in respect of the land  were received by him from different persons some of whom were not even  co-lessees,  to intimate conversion  charges  for  the construction  of "multi-storeyed commercial  building".  The letter also referred to their intention to sell the property to  M/s. Central Investment Private Limited and  the  United Towers  India Private Limited". The authority also  referred to  the  reflection of the same by the  competent  authority under  the  Urban Land (Ceiling and  Regulation)  Act,  1976 stated  that  the  same had created some  doubts  about  the ownership of the land. It was, therefore, necessary  accord- ing  to the authority that a fresh application for the  per- mission  to  construct  the  multi-storeyed  building"  duly signed by all the co-lessees" in the prescribed form  should be sent. It is obvious from this letter that there was  some correspondence between the parties between February 15, 1978 and  March 1, 1980 which has not come on record. The  letter of  March 1, 1980 is obviously not a reply sent by  the  au- thority to the late Hans Raj Gupta’s letter of February  15,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

1978, for the latter does not refer to the construction of a multi-storeyed building or the intended sale of the property to  a third party. The letter is also addressed not  to  the late Hans Raj Gupta and Dev Rai Gupta and others, but to the late  Hans  Raj  Gupta, Dev Raj Gupta, Prem  Raj  Gupta  and Pradeep  Kumar Gupta. It is also clear from the  authority’s letter  that different persons were seeking  permission  for change  of  the user of the land and some of them  were  not even  the  co-lessees of the land. The situation  which  ob- tained till March 1, 1980 was, therefore, that there was  no firm  application  by the authorised person or  persons  for conversion of the user of the land and it 311 is for this reason that the authority had asked the  lessees to  send the application in the prescribed form duly  signed by all the co-lessees. There was no reply to this letter  of March 1, 1980 and hence a reminder was sent by the authority on  June 3, 1980 warning the lessees that in case  no  reply was  received from them within 15 days, the matter would  be treated  as closed. It is pursuant to this reminder that  on February 27, 1981 a letter accompanied by an application  in the prescribed form was sent, and both the letter as well as the  prescribed form were duly signed for the first time  by all the co-lessees. The contents of the accompanying  letter make it clear that even the lessees treated this application as  the first duly-made application for the purpose. It  may also  be  mentioned  here that, as has been  stated  in  the application,  the plans for the construction of the  commer- cial  building were sanctioned only on January 21, 1981  and the,exemption  application made to the  competent  authority under  Section 20 (1) of the Act was even then  still  under process.  It  is in response to this  application  that  the sanction  was given by the authority on January 12, 1984  to convert the user of the land. We are, in the  circumstances, of  the view that it was only on February 27, 1981  that  an application for the change of the user of the land was  made by or on behalf of the respondent lessees of the land.     10.  There is no explanation given by the appellants  as to  why the application made by the respondents of  February 27, 1981 was not replied to till January 12, 1984. Hence  in the absence of anything else on records, it will have to  be held  that  the  date with  reference  to  which  conversion charges have to be counted is 27th February, 1981.     The  authority  has calculated additional  premium  with reference  to  May 27, 1981 on the footing  that  the  outer limit for granting permission was three months from the date of the receipt of the application. There is no justification for  the  authority to hold thus, for they are  expected  to process the application as early as possible and not to wait till the end of three months. Unless there are valid reasons for  them to do so or the delay is caused on account  of  an omission or commission on the part of the applicants, it  is not  proper to take the end of the three months as the  date with  reference  to which the conversion charges  should  be calculated.     We  are, however, informed that in the present  case  it makes no difference whether the charges are calculated  with reference to 27th February 1981 or May 27, 1981. Hence,  the difference in dates in immaterial for our purpose. 312     11. The High Court is further not right in holding  that there was an automatic or a statutory conversion of the user of the land because in the Master Plan the land in  question fell in the area reserved for commercial use. The High Court failed  to  appreciate that the charge of user of  the  land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

permitted by the Plan was only enabling in nature. It lifted the restriction which was otherwise there for using the land for  commercial purpose. The land has to be used as per  the agreement between the contracting parties, and no change  of the  user can be made contrary to the agreement even if  the Plan permits such user. The Plan helps the parties to change the  user, if the parties mutually agree to do so.  It  does not permit the occupant to change the user unilaterally.  It is not, therefore, correct to say that no permission of  the landlord was reeded to change the user of the land.     12. In the view we have taken, we direct that the  addi- tional premium should be calculated by the appellants on the basis  of  the rate which was prevalent as on  February  27, 1981  which  is  the date of the application  made  for  the change  of the user. The interest should be charged on  such additional premium w.e.f. 12th April, 1984 since a period of three months from the date of notice, viz., January 12, 1984 was available to the respondent-lessees to make the  payment of  the  additional premium. Taking into  consideration  the facts and circumstances of the present case, the  appellants should  be given the facility to make the payment  in  three equal annual installments and the interest should be charged on  such deferred payment at not more than 14 per  cent  per annum.  The respondent-lessees would, however, not be  enti- tled  to convert the present user of the land into the  com- mercial user until and unless the last of the amount of  the additional  premium  together with the interest  thereon  is paid.     The respondents will further be liable to pay the misuse charges  mentioned  at  items  6 and 7  of  the  ,notice  of 12.1.1984 till 12th April, 1984 from which date, they  would be paying the conversion charges as above.     The appellants will give the respondents the facility to pay  the rest of the amounts, i.e., the amounts  other  than the  conversion charges in twenty four monthly  installments with interest at no more than 10 per cent annum.     13. The decision of the High Court is set aside and  the appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. G.N.                                            Appeal   al- lowed. 313