S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned counsel waives notice of Rule. The petitioner was heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner seeks a direction that the demand for composition fee made by respondent No. 2 (hereafter called "the DDA") be quashed and declared un-lawful. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was allotted an alternative industrial plot by the respondents. He was carrying on non-conforming industrial activity in a residential area. The allotment to the concerned plot i. e. A-22, Mayapuri phase-II was made on 21. 2. 1975. The DDA issued its no-objection certificate for construction of a building on the said plot on 18. 10. 1976. ( 4 ) IT is averred and contended on behalf of the petitioner that for the period intervening allotment and the issuance of impugned demand on 9. 12. 1998, the question of proper norms for construction was engaging attention of the DDA. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel placed reliance on the DDA's note being item no. 71/93 for consideration by the Authority regarding the precise controlling norms in the Mayapuri area, and submitted that the DDA itself was seeking guidance from the Central Government. It was contended that the erstwhile 1962 master Plan gave no indication regarding the extent of the permitted coverage of various plot sizes in the area. Counsel also relied upon a letter dated 3. 6. 1991 in that regard proposing 100% FAR coverage for plots upto 200 square yards. It was further submitted that after due consultations which entailed considerable delay, the Central Government accepted the DDA's recommendations and notified the permissible FAR and controlling norms on 28. 8. 2001 after proposing amendments tot eh Master Plan under Section 11-A of the Delhi development Act. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel lastly contended that though the issue of legality of demand for composition had been raised in previous writ petition, the Court did not pronounce on it and granted liberty to approach this Court again if the DDA did not consider his representation favourably. Learned counsel relied upon an affidavit of the DDA dated 15. 8. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel lastly contended that though the issue of legality of demand for composition had been raised in previous writ petition, the Court did not pronounce on it and granted liberty to approach this Court again if the DDA did not consider his representation favourably. Learned counsel relied upon an affidavit of the DDA dated 15. 8. 2001 which finds mention in his rejoinder affidavit to content that in identical circumstances where the Old Motors and machinery Parts Dealers Association (of which the petitioner is a member), had approached this Court claiming inter alia that in the absence of indication of norms, the DDA should not make demands for composition fee, the authority had indicated that a decision had been taken by Resolution 22/94 and sent for notification. In that affidavit, the DDA had categorically submitted that the demand raised by it towards composition fee in case of allotment of plots to the Old Motors and Machinery Parts Dealers Association stood withdrawn. ( 6 ) MR. Rajiv Bansal, learned for the respondent relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that the obligation to construct arose on account of clause 5 of the lease deed which granted a window period of two years. Although, the demand made in this case related back to the point in time when the allotment was made to the petitioner, the liability arose immediately upon expiry of the said two years period. Learned counsel contended that the fact that the question question of FAR was in the decision making process did not relieve the petitioner from the obligation to comply conditions of lease which are categorical. ( 7 ) THE above narrative shows that the petitioner, initially as a partner of a firm, was alloted the plot A-22, Mayapuri Indistrial Area in lieu of an existing space where he was entitled to carry on industrial activity. Clause 5 (i) of the lease conditions obliged the lessee to erect, within two years, an industrial building after obtaining necessary sanctions from the Municipal and other authorities. It is undisputed that the allotment and the possession was made in February, 1979. However, the DDA issued a no-objection certificate on 18. 10. 1976. Facially, therefore, the demand to the extent it relates back to 21. 2. 1975 was made without application of mind. It is undisputed that the allotment and the possession was made in February, 1979. However, the DDA issued a no-objection certificate on 18. 10. 1976. Facially, therefore, the demand to the extent it relates back to 21. 2. 1975 was made without application of mind. In my considered view, other matters apart, the two years period would have expired only on 17. 10. 1978 i. e. after the no-objection certificate was issued. On this ground, the impugned demand cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) THE above observations do not conclude the dispute because the demands have traversed a larger period as the DDA claimed and to claim composition fee in 1998. The petitioner has relied upon a note put up for the consideration and acceptance by the DDA. That proposed in FAR coverage for industrial plots in mayapuri Indistrial Area, Phase-II. The note recorded that the plot sizes varied between 20 square yards and 400 square yards. Though they were located in the industrial use zone, the Master Plan for Delhi had provision for low coverage in the FAR for industrial plot. This was sought to be increased in the master Plan for Delhi-2001. The note further recorded that despite this, there were certain categories of plots which were not covered by MPD-2001. ( 9 ) THE Technical Committee made recommendations to the following effect: "4. In view of the representations, this issue of coverage, FAR and setbacks was discussed in the Technical Committee meeting held on 11. 12. 85 at the time when MPD-2001 was being prepared. The Technical Committee made the following recommendations: (i)Plot size 45 sq. yds- 100% ground coverage with 120 FAR and the space to the provided for manhole within the plot. (ii)Plot size 92 sq. yds. and 100 sq. yds.- front setback 15', max. ground coverage- 75% after ensuring the min. front set back Far Max. 120. (iii)Plot size 134, 165 and 200 sq.- front setback min. 15'. Gr. Coverage Max. 60% after ensuring min. front setback, FAR-120 Mas. 5. The plots holders were still not satisfied and as such the representations continued. Again this case has been discussed in the Technical committee meeting held on 29. 4. 1992. The Technical Committee recommended the following: size of the plot Ground coverage FAR Setbacks Rear Front 20 to 50 sq. mts. 100% 100 Above 50 sq. mts. 75% 120 3 Mts. to 100 sq. mts. Again this case has been discussed in the Technical committee meeting held on 29. 4. 1992. The Technical Committee recommended the following: size of the plot Ground coverage FAR Setbacks Rear Front 20 to 50 sq. mts. 100% 100 Above 50 sq. mts. 75% 120 3 Mts. to 100 sq. mts. Above 100 sq. mts. to 400 sq. mts. 60% 120 3 mts. Basement and mezzanine if provided will be counted into FAR and will be equivalent to the ground coverage. " ( 10 ) THE letter dated 3. 6. 1991 by the Joint Director, (Industrial) proposes 100% coverage of plots sizes upto 200 square yards and also relieving the penalty for not constructing on the plot. In another proceedings i. e. Old motors and Machinery Parts Dealers Association (W. P. (C) 925/1991 decided on 20th july, 2001 the very same issues were raised and were pending consideration. The first claim in that petition was for declaration that the demand for composition fee was without jurisdiction. The petitioners had averred that there were assurances about the norms and that the recommendations of the Technical committee had not been approved or acted upon by the DDA. In those proceedings, the DDA filed an affidavit on 18. 8. 2001. The affidavit disclosed that a resolution No. 71/93 dated 8. 6. 1993 approved the proposal for MPD 2001. Later, this issue was sent for approval to the Central Government and further action. The Central Government was informed that a notification under Section 11-A was issued eliciting objections to the proposal contained in Resolution No. 22/94. In view of these facts, the DDA had averred as follows: "3. That vide resolution No. 71/93 dated 8. 6. 1993, the Delhi Development authority approved the proposal to make amendments in MPD 2001 with regard to the changes in the plot size. Copy of the resolution is enclosed as Annexure-A hereto. 4. That the above resolution was conveyed to the Govt. of Indian for approval under Section 11 A of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957. The govt. of India had conveyed the approval of the Central Government vide their letter dated 15. 12. 1993. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure-B hereto. A public notice was also issued on 22. 1. 1994, copy whereof is enclosed as annexure-C hereto. 5. The govt. of India had conveyed the approval of the Central Government vide their letter dated 15. 12. 1993. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure-B hereto. A public notice was also issued on 22. 1. 1994, copy whereof is enclosed as annexure-C hereto. 5. That the matter was thereafter again placed before the Delhi development Authority vide resolution No. 22/94 whereby the proposed amendment in the MPD 2001 was also approved. Copy thereof is enclosed as Annexure-P hereto. The said resolution was communicated to the Govt. of India vide a letter dated 8. 6. 1994 is enclosed as Annexure-E hereto. In this matter, the issuance of the notification by the Government is awaited. 6. That so far as the issue of regarding levy of composition fee and betterment charges is concerned, the matter was considered and it has been decided that the demand raised by the D. D. A. on account of composition fee in case of allotments of plots to the Old Motors and Machineries Parts Dealers association stand withdrawn. " ( 11 ) IN the light of the above averments, a Division Bench of this Court disposed off W. P. (C) 925/1991 recording that the demand for composition fee stood withdrawn. In addition, it is apparent that the DDA itself had considered the entire issue and recommended amendment to the Master Plan as far back as in 1991. The recommendation was approved y the Central Government in 1994 and a notification was issued. However, the final notification amending the Master plan was not published. It saw the light of the day only on 28th November, 2001. A copy of that notification is part of the record as Annexure P-10 in these proceedings. ( 12 ) THE relevant portion of the notification dated 28. 11. 2001 is as follows: "now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (2)of Section 11-A of the Said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following modifications in the said Master Plan or Delhi with effect from the date of publication of this Notification in the Gazette of India. MODIFICATIONS: industrial PLOT-LIGHT AND SERVICE INDUSTRY (036)In case of Junk Market, Mayapuri Industrial Area (Phase-II), the following norms shall apply: (a) Minimum size of the plot shall be 16 sq. mtrs. And for the plots from 16 to 50 sq. mtrs ground coverage shall be 100% and maximum FAR 100. MODIFICATIONS: industrial PLOT-LIGHT AND SERVICE INDUSTRY (036)In case of Junk Market, Mayapuri Industrial Area (Phase-II), the following norms shall apply: (a) Minimum size of the plot shall be 16 sq. mtrs. And for the plots from 16 to 50 sq. mtrs ground coverage shall be 100% and maximum FAR 100. (b) for plots size about 50 sq. mtrs. Maximum ground coverage shall be 75% FAR 120 with 3 mtr. Front setback. " ( 13 ) IT is evident from the above discussion that between 1991 and 28th november, 2001, the DDA itself had formed the opinion that there was vacuum as far as norms in the Mayapuri Industrial area were concerned. In similar proceedings that challenged the power and demand for composition fee, the DDA made a statement that due to the changed perspective and presumably the delay in the decision making process plot holders would not be issued demands for payment of composition fee. These are matters of record. The previous writ petition i. e. W. P. (C) 925/1991 was disposed off in the light of statements recorded in the affidavit filed in the Court on 18. 5. 2004 That statement has also been acted upon as evident from Notification dated 28th November, 2001, an extract of which has been reproduced above. ( 14 ) IN view of these, I am of the opinion that the DDA should not have made the impugned demand, for composition fee, as it amounts to violation of article 14 and discriminating against the petitioner. He was as much a victim of the DDA's snail like pace in the decision making process, as the petitioners in W. P. (C) 925/1991. The said impugned order to the extent it seeks to demand composition fee for the period 25. 2. 1975 till 30. 3. 1999 is therefore not sustainable; it is therefore quashed. ( 15 ) THE writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.