Disposed

Dhani Ram Mittal v. M.C.D. &Ors.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2017W.P.(C)/1396/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Owners of subdivided industrial plots challenged municipal action against their properties. The court permitted withdrawal and disposed of the petitions with three months to submit collective layout plans, protecting the properties from coercive action for three months after communication of the municipal decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit collective layout plans within three months; protection from coercive action for three months after communication of the local body's decision.

Dhani Ram Mittal Vs M.C.D. &Ors. — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

) oM

¶3

3N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date ofJudgment: 06.02.2017 -IW.P.(C)No.13895-9]8/2006 & C.M. Nos.10894/2006,13430/2006& 13431/2006 AN[L DHWAN & OTHERS Petitioners Through None. versus MUNICIPALCORP OF DELHI &ANR Respondents Through Mr.Aja}'Aroraa. Advocate for MOD. Mr.Ajay Vernia, Advocate for DDA. I- 'V.P.(C) 14974-978/2006 DINESH KUMAR & ORS. Petitioners Through None. versus MCD &ANR Respondents Through Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. V/,P.(C) 15120/2006& C.M. No.12066/2006 MARISH CHANDERSETHI PetiLionw Fhrough Mr.Manish Srivastava and Mr. Ashoi< Kumar Sharnia, Advocaies, versus .....Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocatefor MCD. Mr.Aja)- Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 15717/2006& C.M. No.12591/2006 MlNAKSHl TRfVEDI petitioner ihroLigh .Mr.Manish Srivastavaand Mr. Ashok K.uinai' Siiarma. Advocates. versus Raspondeni,, 1hrough Mr.AjayAroraa, Advocate for MCD. iV'i'r.Ai'ayVerma, Advocate foi' DfXA.

¶4

um-iJ9i8/20fi6, N<)74..i4V7s,yw6, !}7!7m06 ^?!-n2/2V07, 'm-49m(W7, 5l?/2')l:7, 5-10/200', 56V2M7. 171/2//,>7 f2V^'W7 '/U 6,2/2007. 752.754/20<>r, n9I/>fW7, ISV6/2i)07 !6-^7,2,07. I6!.j'/20i'7'J7m^

¶5

moo? "a • of Hi

¶6

	V/.P.(C) 142/2007 & C.M. N JEEVAN JYOTI ENTERPRIS	o.256/2007 ES P.LTD	Petitioner
	, Through versus MCD&ORS.	Mr. Maneesh Go	yal, Adv. Respondents
	Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, • Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate for MCD. Advocate for DDA.
	W.P.(C) 143/2007 & C.M. N INSPIRATION DEALERS P	o.258/2007 .LTD.	Petitioner
	Through versus	Mr. ManeeshGo	yal, Adv.
	iVlCD&ORS.		Respondents
	Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Mr.Ajay Verraa,	Advocate for MCD. Advocate for DDA.
	W.P.(C) 144/2007 & C.M. No HUM LOG TRADERS P.LT	.260/2007 D.	Petitioner
	Through versus	Mr..ManeeshGo	yal.Adv.
	M(.D&ORS.		Respondenls
	Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate IbrMCD. Advocate for DDA.
-t-	Vv'.!(C) 393./2007 & C.M., No ANfLAGGARWAL •	.713/2007	Petitioner
	Through 'versus	None.
	M.C.D.&ORS.		Respondents
	Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa,	Advocale for MCD.
	W.P.(C) 394/2007 & C.M. No	Mr.Ajay Verma. .715/2007	Advocate for DDA.
	. RAJINDERGOEL		Petitioner
	Through versus	None.
	iVI-CTJ).&ORS.		Respondents
	Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa,	Advocate for MCD.
		Mr.Ajay Verma.	Advocate for DDA.

¶7

13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, ISI20/2006, 15717/2006, i42-i44/2007, 393394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-49W2007, 517/2007, >40/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 6^8640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007,1649- 1651/2007^1716/2007. 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007. 4490-4497/2007 44i)sr)lilj7 4498/2007 ' Paoe„„ 2 of //>'

¶8

' Paoe„„ 2 of //>'

¶9

/ o6

¶10

	W.P.(C) 421/2007	& C.M. No	.755/2007
	RAJNI NASSA			' Petitioner
		Tlirough versus	None.
	MCD&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.Ajay	Aroraa, Advocate for MCD.
			Mr.Aja}'	Verma, Advocate for DDA.
; -I-	W.P.(C) 422/2007	& C.M. N	o.757/2007
	ASHWINI KAPO	OR		Petitioner
		Through versus	None.
	MCD&ORS.			Respondents
		Tlirough	Mr.Ajay	Aroraa, Advocate for MCD.
			Mr.Ajay	Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	W.P.CC)496/2007	& C.M. N	o.897/2007
	SANJIV KUMAR	JAIN		Petitioner
		Through	None.
		versus
	MCD&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.Ajay	Aroraa, Advocate forMCD.
/			Mr.Ajay	Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	W.P.(C) 497/2007	& C.M. No	.899/2007
	VINODKUMAR	SHARMA	'	. Petitioner
		Through	None.
		versus
	MCD&ORS.			Respondents
		Tlirough	Mr.Ajay	Aroraa, Advocate forMCD.
	W.P.(C) 498/2007	& C.M. No	Mr.Ajay .905/2007	Verma, Advocate for DDA
	RAI cS:SONSP. L	TD.		Petitioner
		Through	None.
		versus
	M.C.D.&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.Ajay	Aroraa, Advocate for MCD.
			Mr.Ajay	Verma, Advocate for DDA.

¶11

I'KP.CQ Am 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007,.517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007,1649- 1651/2007, 171-6/2007, 2995/2007. 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007.449 VH)07 .IJ

¶12

¶13

+	W.P.(C) 499/2007	& C.M. No	.907/2007
	RAKESH GULAT	I		Petitioner
		Through versus	None,
	M.C.D. &ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa,	Advocate for MCD.
			Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate for DDA.
+	W.P.(C) 517/2007	& G.M. No	.953/2007 •,
	SUMIT RATHOR	& ORS.		Petitioners
		Through	None.
		versus
	M.C.D. & ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa,	Advocate i'orMCD.
			Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate for DDA.
	W.P.(C) 540/2007	& C.M. No	.1003/2007
	RAJEEV KUKRE	JA		Petitioner
		Through versus	None,
	MCD & ORS.			Respondents
t		Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa,	Advocate for MCD.
/			Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate for DDA.
i +	W.P.(C) 569/2007	& C.M. No	.1051/2007
	KAILASPI DEVI			Petitioner
		Through versus	None.
	MCD & ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa,	Advocate for MCD.
			Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate for DDA.
i I-	W.P.(C)573/2007	&C.M.No	.1057/2007
	SANTOSPI KUM	AR VERMA		Petitioner
		Through	None.
		versus
	MCD & ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa,	Advocate for MCD.
			Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate for DDA.

¶14

!V.R(C) Nos. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007i 1647/2007, 16491651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & 4498/2007 P(i;,^e4ofl8

¶15

10^'

¶16

• r	W.P.(C) 622/2007 &C.M. No. GAGAN CHOPRA	1152/2007	Petitioner
	Through	None.
	versus
	MCD&ORS	'	Respondents
	Tlirough	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate tor MCD. Advocate for DDA.
-i-	W.P.(C) 638/2007 &C.M.N0.1 ANDND SWAROOP NAYYA	,171/2007 R	Petitioner
i	Through versus	None,
	MCD (&ORS		Respondents
	Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa,	Advocate for MCD.
		Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate for DDA.
-f	W.P.(C)639/2007&c!m.No. VIRENDER KUMAR	1173/2007	Petitioner
•	Through versus MCD&ORS	None.	Respondents
	Through	Mr.AjayAroraa, Mr.Ajay Verma,	AdvocateforMCD. Advocate for DDA.
• i-	W.P.(C) 640/2007 &C.M.No.	1175/2007
i	RAJESH KUMAR KHOSLA		Petitioner
	Through versus	None.
	MCD&ORS		Respondent
•I	Through W.P.(C) 642/2007 & C.M. No.	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Mr.Ajay Verma. 1180/2007	Advocate forMCD. Advocate for DDA.
I	M/SBHIIOVMCHANDBAID		Petitioner
	Through versus MCD&ORS	None.	Respondent
	Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa,	Advocate forMCD.
		Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate for DDA.

¶17

IKP.(CJ IS'us. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007. 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007. 638640/2007, 642/2007. 752-754/2007. 1191/2007, 1396/2007,1647/2007. 1649- 1651/2007. 1716/2007. 2995/2007, 4128/2007. 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4491/2007 tV-

¶18

raj^5ofl8

¶19

|D9

¶20

	4	W.P.(C) 752/2007 BONANZO ENG	& C.M. No G. & CHEM	. 1410/2007 ICALS P.LT	Petitioner
		IV1.C..D.& ORS.	Through versus	None.	Respondent
			Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa,	Advocate for MCD.
V				Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate for DDA.
	I-	W.P.(C) 753/2007 NAVEEN JAIN	& C.M. No & ANR	.1412/2007	Petitioner
			Through versus	None.
		MCD & ORS.			Respondent
			Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate for MCD. Advocate for DDA.
	•f	W.P.(C) 754/2007 .lAGDISH MALH	& C.M. No OTRA & A	.l414/2007 NR	Petitioner
			Through ^'ersus	None.
		MCD eg: ORS.			Respondents
-/	•I	W.P.(C) 1191/200	Through 7 & C.M..N	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Mr.Ajay Verma, o.2117/2007	Advocate for MCD. . Advocate for DDA.
		DILIPSINGHG	HOLCHA		' Petitioner
			Through versus	None.
		M.C.D.&ORS.			Respondents
	i-	W.P.(C) 1396/200	Through 7 & C.M. N	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Mr.Ajay Verma. o.2556/2007	Advocate for MCD. Advocate for DDA.
		DHANI RAM MI	TTAL		Petitioner
			Through versus	. None.
		M.C.D. &ORS.			Respondent
			Througli	Mr.Ajay Aroraa,	Advocate for MCD.
				Mr.Ajay Verma,	Advocate for DDA.

¶21

py.p.fc) iVos. 13895-139]8/2006, l497'/-14')78/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007,'393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/200 7, 51 7/2007, 540/200 7, 569/200 7, 573/200 7, 622/200 7; 638640/2007. 042/2007, 752-754/2007. 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 16491651/2007, 1716/2007. 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007. 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 t.6 4498/2007 Pu'^e6(,fl8

¶22

110

¶23

	W.P.(C) 1647/20 K.L.J.RESOURCE	07 & C.M. S LTD. &	Nos.3028/2007 & 16429/2013 ORS. Petitioners
		Tlirough	Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv.
		versus
	M.C.D.&ORS.		Respondents
		Througli	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD.
			Mr.Ajay Verraa, Advocate for DDA.
+	W.P.(C) 1649/20	07 & C.M.	No.3032/2007
	DEPENDABLE	CONSUME	R GOODS P.LT Petitioner
		Tlirough versus	Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv.
	M.C.D.&ORS.		Respondents
		Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate forMCD.
			Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
+	W.P.(C) 1650/200	7 & C.M.	No.3034/2007
	SUMERMAL PA	TAWARI	TRUST Petitioner
		Through	Mr.KuljeetRawal,Adv.
		versus
	M.C.D.&ORS.		Respondents
		Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, AdvocateforMCD.
/			Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	VV.P.(C)1651/200 ASHULOK TRA	7 & C.M. DERS P. L	No.3036/2007 TD. & ORS. Petitioners
		Through	Mr.KuljeetRawal,Adv.
		versus
	M.C.D. & ORS.		Respondents
		Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD.
	W.P.(C) 1716/200	7 '	Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	D.D.INDUSTRIES	LTD	Petitioner
		llirough	None.
		versus
	M.C.D & ORS		Respondent
		Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD.
			Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.

¶24

/Yav. 13S95-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007. 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, .2995/2007. 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 &

¶25

— Ill

¶26

		W.P.(C) 2995/2007 & C.M.	No.5607/2007
		HARJBHAJAN BARHA & A	NR Petitioners
		Tlirougli versus Througli	None. Respondent Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	+ ,	W.P.(C)4128/2007&C.M. NAJAFGARIiROADINDU Through versus	Nos.7776/2007,10826/2007&2814/2008 STRIESASSO Petitioner Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv.
		Through	Respondent Mr.AjayAroraa, Advocate forMCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	+	W.P.(C) 4365/2007 & C.M. N AMARNATHPASRICHA	o.8184/2007 Petitioner
		Through versus	None.
		MCD&ORS..	Respondents
/ /		Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	+	W.P.(C)4482/2007&C.M.N ARZOO INDUSTRIES	os.8384/2007,3571/2008&1793/2009 Petitioner
		Through versus	None.
		M.C.D. &ORS. Through	Respondents Mr. MukeshGupta,StandingCounsel M'ith Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
		W.P.(C)4483/2007&C.M.N MEGHAENTERPWSES Through versus	os.8386/2007&3572/2008 Petitioner None.
	IV.P.fC) 394/2007 640/2007 2995/200	Nos. 13895-13918/2006,14974-14978 , 421-422/2007,496-499/2007,517/20 , 642/2007,752-754/2007,1191/2007, 7, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2	/2006,15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007,393- 07, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007,622/20oi 638- 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649- I65I/2007, 1716/2007, 007,4485-4488/2007,4490-4492/20074495/^007& Pn,/8ofl8

¶27

1)^

¶28

		M.C.D. & ORS.		Respondents
	+	W.P.(C) 4485/20 R.K.CHEMICAL	Through 07 &C.M. WORKS	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. NOS.8389/2007& 3579/2008 • Petitioner
			Through	None.
		M.C.D. & ORS.	versus Through	Respondents Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD.
I ^				Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	-I-	W.P.(C) 4486/200	7 & C.M.	Nos.8391/2007 & 3570/2008
		UNI PLAST IND.		Petitioner
			Through versus	None.
		M.C.D. & ORS.		Respondents
			Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. •
	+	V/.P.(C) 4487/200	7 & C.M.	Nos.8393/2007 & 3575/2008
		KONICA INDUS	TRIES	Petitioner
			Through versus	None.
		M.C.D. & ORS.		Respondents
			Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	•I-	W.P.(C) 4488/200	7 & C.M.	Nos.8395/2007 & 3573/2008
		ABBA INDUSTR	IES '	Petitioner
			T'hrough	None,
		M.C.D, & ORS.	versus	Respondents
	I-	VV.P.(C)4490/200	Tlirough 7 & C.M.	Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. Nos.8399/2007 & 3577/2008
		JUPITOR ELECT	RICALS Through	Petitioner None.

¶29

l3895-i39im0i)<), 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 3<J3394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, '573/2007, -622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007,'4128/2007, 4365/2007,•4482-4483/2007. 4485-4488/2007, 4490-A492Q0n7. 4495/2007 & 449H/200'' Pa['e 9 of IS •

¶30

1A2>

¶31

	M.C.D. &ORS.	versus Through	Respondents Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	W.P.(C) 4491/200 JAIN STEEL	7 & C.M.	Nos.8401/2007 & 3574/2008 Petitioner
V		Through versus	None.
	M.C.D.&ORS.	Through	Respondents . Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	W.P.(C) 4492/200 •IAINGENERAL	7 & C.M.	Nos.8403/2007 & 3576/2008 Petitioner
	M.C.D.&ORS.	Through versus Through	None. Respondents Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
/	W.P,(C) 4495/200 RELIABLE PRIN	7 & C.M. TING INK	Nos.8408/2007, 8409/2007 & 3570/2008 CO. Petitioner
		Through	None.
	M.C.D.&ORS.	versus	Respondents
		Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate forMCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
	W.P.(C) 4498/200 7943/2010	7 & C.M.	Nos.84]4/2007, 3578/2008, 1794/2009&
	MALHOTRA EN	TERPRISES	Petitioner
		Throueh	None.
	M.C.D.&ORS.	versus	Respondents

¶32

l'KP.(C) .'Y,;.v. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 3933<)4/200y, 421-422/2007, 496-49W2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007. 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & 4498/2007 Page. 10 of 18

¶33

-11^

¶34

Through	Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chetan Gautani, Adv for MCD.
	Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
+ W.P.(C) 6973/2007 & C.M. N	o. 13229/2007
SAEEDA KHATOON SIDDI	QUI & ORS Petitioners
Through	Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv.
versus
MCD	Respondent
Through	Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD.
	Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.

¶35

CQRAM:

¶36

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶37

liNDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral)

¶38

1 Vide this common judgment,'the aforenoted bunch of writ petitions

¶39

shall be disposed of.

¶40

2 1he petitionersbefore,this Court are all property holders of plots at Rama Road, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area, New Delhi. There is no dispute that Rama Road in West Delhi was conceived as an "industrial area" for extensiveindustrieswith large industrialplots. It is also not in dispute that each of these plots were sub-dividedinto several plots. The case of the I petitioner is that their building plans were purportedly sanctioned by the Corporationi.e. erstwhileMunicipal Corporationof Delhi (now represented by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). Their revised building plans were also approved and sanctioned. Property tax had been deposited by

¶41

}V.P.(C) iWos. 13S95-I39IS/2006, N974-N97S/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007,4495/2007 & 4498/2007 Page 11 of 18

¶42

¶43

them. Individualpetitionershad purchased their individual plots from the erstwhile owners. Since these industrialplots were large in size (in some case being more than 10 acres and above), the plots had been sub-divided and individual registered sale deeds had been entered into between the individualpetitionersand the erstwhileowners. Property' tax and house tax were also being paid by the petitioners. Conveyance deeds had also been executedby the DDA in favour of the petitionersfor conversionofthe lease hold rights in these propertiesinto free-hold. The petitionershad carried out their respective constructions,in their respective properties. Electricity connections were obtained. The petitioners were carrying on their commercial activities from the aforenoted industrial plots. In the year 2006, certain demolitions were carried out by the respondent Corporation for allegedillegalmis-user. Thesewrit petitionswere accordinglyfiled.

¶44

3 In the counter affidavit, the respondent Corporation had taken an objection that the policy of the Department does not permit them to sub divide a plot and the sub-dividedstatus of an originalplot cannot be granted any recognition by the Corporation.

¶45

4 On 04.09.2006, the Court had noted that the respondent MCD shall carry out the direction of the Monitoring Committee and it was on the

¶46

W.P.{C) Nos. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/200 7, 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007'& 4498/2007 Page 12of 18

¶47

¶48

recommendationsof the MonitoringCommitteethat the proposedaction had been taken againstthe propertiesof the petitioners. The Single Judge ot this Court had directedthe matter to be Hsted along with the connectedpetition i.e. W.P. (C) No.4589/2003 Kalvan Sanstha Matter to be listed before the V DivisionBench. Till that time, status quo was directedto be maintained.

¶49

•5 The petitioners before the Division Bench had undertaken that all illegal deviations/constructionswould be demolished by themselves voluntarily. This monitoringcontinuedbeforethe DivisionBench.

¶50

¶51

6 The DivisionBench,had disposedof this writ petitionon 01.04.2008. Both Members of the Division Bench had returned different findings. Provisions.of Clause 7.6.1 of MPD-2021 was the subject matter of discussion. Clause 7.6.1 reads herein as under;-

¶52

"7.6.1 ExistingPlannedIndustrialAreas

¶53

These industrializedareas were developedin the, 70's and over the years, have deterioratedconsiderablein terms ofphysical infrastructureand, in some cases deficiencieson this score have persistedin an overall sense. Besides, there have been changes in the nature oj activitiesin some of the areas and there have also been demandsfor using part of the plots for activities, yvhich could be classifiedas commercial There may also be a need to see whetherfurther densificationis possible in terms of creating

¶54

WP.(C) Nos. 13895-13918/2006. 14974-14978/2006. 15120/2006, 15717/2006. 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007. 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 57.S/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, .1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007 4128/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007. 4495/2007 & Pii<'e 13 of 18 4498/2007

¶55

1'^

¶56

smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number of industries/units. Guidelinesfor redevelopmentof existing industrial areas shall beframed M'ithin. 2years by DDA in consultationwith GNCTD and the local body. Tillsuch time, the existins sub divisions may continue.

¶57

There is, therefore, a need for modernization and up-gradation of the existing industrial areas with due regard to environmentalconsiderations. Since most of the Industrial areas are located along the Mass Public TransportCorridors,there is also a needfor optimizingthe use aroundthese areas through theprocess of redevelopment.

¶58

This process of upgradation and redevelopmentwill need to be carried out in a planned manner, and in a public-private partnership framework, in which the entrepreneurs contribute to the betterment and. subsequent maintenance through suitable Operation and Maintenance arrangements."

¶59

¶60

7 The moot question i.e. till what time "the existing sub-divisions may continue" was to be answered.

¶61

8 The Court of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rekha Sharma held that sub divisions are permissiblebut was of the opinionthat the petitioners were not entitled to a de-sealing of their units as the constructions raised by them were illegal and unauthorized.

¶62

9 The Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri (as his Lordship then

¶63

was) was of the view that since guidelines for redevelopment of existing

¶64

W.P.(C) Nos. 13895-13918/2006, I4974-N97S/2006, I5I20/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 <£ 4498/2007 Page U of 18

¶65

¶66

industrial units are yet to be formulated by the policy makers and these commercial establishments were operating for a number of years, the occupiers should be given a respite and had put a moratorium against any coercive action; it was of the view that the properties of the petitioners should be protected and had accordingly granted a status quo to them accordingly; he had permitted the de-sealing of their properties subject to certain conditions.

¶67

10 In view of these different opinions given by the two Judges, matter was referred to a third'Judge. The matter has now come been marked to this Court.

¶68

11 In the course of these hearings, learned counsel for the respondent/DDA had taken time to appraise this Court about the Rules and Regulations which have been formulated after the promulgation of MPD2021. The petitioners had also sought time for the same purpose.

¶69

12 Today, this Court has been informed that the Delhi Development Authority vide its Notification dated 01.04.2011 has notified certain guidelines i.e. "Regulations and Guidelines for Redevelopment of Existing Planned Industrial Area" (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). It is

¶70

W.P.(C) /\os. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/200 7, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638640/200 7, 642/200 7, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1649- I65I/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 ct 4498/2007 I'nge 15 of 18

¶71

11'^

¶72

not in disputethat these Regulationswould be applicableto the propertiesof

¶73

the petitioners.

¶74

13 Clause 2.3 of these Regulations is relevant. It reads herein as under:-

¶75

¶76

"Redevelopment of Existing Planned Industrial Areas through sub-division ofplots.

¶77

Master Plan-2021 also realizes that the existence of smaller plots by sub dividing the larger plots and has recommended to prepare guidelines for regularization of such sub-divisions. Accordingly,the owners ofsub-divided plots shall collectivelyprepare and submitthe Layoutplan toLocal Bodyfor approval along with the required mandatory documents as per BBL/to the satisfaction of the Local Body."

¶78

14 These Regulations thus recognize the existence of smaller plots b}' sub-divisionfrom the largerplots. The owners ofthe sub-dividedplots have been directed to collectivelyprepare and submit a layout plan to the local body along with the requiredmandatory documentsto the satisfactionof the • local body. The local body in this case is the North Delhi Municipal Corporation. After the approval of layout plan by the local body, the sanction of the building plan on individual plots would be governed by MPD-2021 developmentcontrolnorms given in the Guidelines/Regulations.

¶79

W.P.(C) Nos. 13S95-139IS/2006, 14974-14978/2006, I5I20/2006, I57I7/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & 4498/2007 Page 16of 18

¶80

§0

¶81

]5 In view of foiTnulation of these Regulations, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they would seek permission of this Court to witlidraw their petitions with liberty granted to them to approach the local body. They are permitted to do so.

¶82

16 These petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty grantedto the petitioners to permit the co-owners of sub-divided plots to collectively prepare and submit their layout plan to North Delhi Municipal Corporation for approval. This would be along with all the mandatory documents which would be to the satisfaction of the local body. A period of three months is granted for the said purpose. This is in view of the submission of the petitioners that in some cases there are several co-owners of one plot and to collate the documents it would be a cumbersome process for which sometime would be required.

¶83

17 It is made clear that all co-owners of one plot will make this collective application to the local body.

¶84

18 fhe applications of the petitioners will be considered in accordance with iav' aad approval of the layout plan will be.answered by the local body in accordance with kiw. The sanction of the building plan on the individual plots will, thereafter be governed by MPD-202] development control norms.

¶85

ir./'.fC) Nos. 13895-13918/2006.. 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2000, 15717/2006, I'12-144/2007, 393394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007. 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007. 1191/2007, 1396/2007. 1647/2007. 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007. 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & 4498/2007 P!i<,'c 17 of 18

¶86

/al

¶87

19 After an order has been passed by the local body, no coercive action shall be taken against the properties of the petitioners till the next three months and this period of three months be counted from the date of communication of this order to the petitioners (which may be by registered A.D. post, .courier or any mode of accepted service). Needless to state that if the i:)eiitioners are aggiieved by the action of the respondent, they may take steps in accordance Vt'ith law. This order is passed without prejudice to the

¶88

respective rights and contentions of the parties.

¶89

20 Petitions disposed of in the above terms.

INDERMEET KAUR,

FEBRUARY 06, 2017 A

•/

H'./(C) AV/.v. I3895-139IS/2006, N<)74-N97S/20n6, }5l2()/2(m. I57IV2(I06, I42-!44/2(i(l7. .m394/2007, '121-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007. 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 63H640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649- I65u'20<n, 1716/2007. 2995/2007, 412H/200-7, 4365/2007, 44S2-44H3/2007, 44S5-44HH/2007, 4490-4492/2007 4495/2007 ..t 449H/2007 I'ni'c ofhS

Dhani Ram Mittal v. M.C.D. &Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhani Ram Mittal v. M.C.D. &Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India & Anr. Vs Sanjenbam Sadananda Singh

Independent Schools Federation of India (Regd.) & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Arshad Alam Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Hari Singh Vs State

Union of India and Anr. Vs Chhitar Mal Meena

Sonam Kumari Vs Delhi Public School and Ors.

Maya Devi Vs DDA & Ors.

Ram Asre Mishra Vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) & Ors.

Ramesh Kakkar (Huf) Vs MCD & Ors.

Manju Yadav Vs Harsh Yadav

Sarvjeet Singh Vs Gurmeet Singh & Ors.

Jeevan Jyoti Enterprises P.Ltd Vs MCD & Ors.

Inspiration Dealers P.Ltd. Vs MCD & Ors.

Hum Log Traders P.Ltd. Vs MCD & Ors.