Disposed

Jeevan Jyoti Enterprises P.Ltd v. MCD & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2017W.P.(C)/142/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Owners of subdivided industrial plots challenged municipal action against their properties. The court disposed of the petitions with liberty to submit collective layout applications within three months. It barred coercive action for three months after communication of the local body's order, leaving building sanctions subject to MPD-2021 norms.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit collective layout applications within three months; no coercive action for three months from communication of the local body's order.

Jeevan Jyoti Enterprises P.Ltd Vs MCD & Ors. — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

s- *	JNTHEHIGHCOURT	OFDELHIAT DateofJudgme	NEWDELHI nt:06.02.2017
+	W.P.(C)No.13895-918/2006 13431/2006 ANILDl/WAN&OTHERS Through versus MUNICIPALCORPOFDE Through	&C.M.Nos.10894 None, LHI&ANR Mr.AjayAroraa. Mr.AjayVerma.	/2006,13430/2006& Petitioners Respondents AdvocateforMOD. AdvocateforDDA.
-I	W.P.(C)14974-978/2006 DINESHKUMAR&ORS.		Petitioners
	Through versus	None,
	MCD&ANR Through	Mr.AjayAroraa, Mr.AjayVerma,	Respondents AdvocateforMCD. AdvocateforDDA.
i	W.P.(C)15120.'2006&C.M. HARISHCHANDERSETHI Through versus	No.12066/2006 Mr.ManishSriva KumarSharma,.	Petitioner stavaandMr.Ashok Advocates.
	MCD&ANR Through	Mr.AjayAroraa, Mr.AjayVerma,	Respondents AdvocateforMCD. AdvocateforDDA.
	W.P.(C)15717/2006&.C.M. MiNAKSHI4'RlVEDI	No.l2591/2006	Petitioner
	Through versus	Mr.Man.ishSriva Kuinai"Sharma.	.stavaandMr.Ashok Advocates,
	MCD&ANR		Respondents
	Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforM(HO.
		Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.

¶3

u.f.((j -VfAv. !3S9s-ij(jis/2fm. N97.i.t49'^H/2(m, in imrmtui. 393. J-iinfiO ', 4?!-422/2it()7, 496-4'Pl.'20t!7, 3l7.'2'lt:7. 54II/20II 3(n/2MP. S73.'2lP7. 622/2007, 6.Ut'uiil/'oO?, 642/2007. 752-73'02n(r, / >•/!/20il7, i396/20(P, !,'P/nth.)/. !(h<: I63!r2007. i7i't/20ii7, 2'J'l.'t/2'H''7. 4128/2007, 436')'200~. 44,17-44.33/'007, ')4i;3-')/Hii/?0tl7, 44')0-1492/2007, 4493/2007 A l400/2!.ii7 l'ag<n oflSoflS

imrmtui. 393.

l'ag<n oflSoflS

1^9

	I-	W.P.(C)142/200	7&C.M.No	.256/2007
		.1EEVANJYOTI	ENTERPRI	SESP.LTD Petitioner
		.	Through	Mr.ManeeshGoyal,Adv.
			versus
		MCD&ORS.		Respondents
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,Ad-vocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
	)	W.P.(C)143/200	7& C.M.No	.258/2007
		INSPIRATIOND	EALERSP	.LTD. Petitioner
			Through versus	Mr.ManeeshGoyal,Adv.
		MCD&ORS.		Respondents
r-			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa.AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
	t-	W.P.(C)144/200	7&C.M.No	.260/2007
		HUMLOGTRA	DERSP.LT	D. Petitioner
			Through versus	Mr.ManeeshGoyal.Adv.
		MCD&ORS.		Respondents
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa.AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
	f	Vv.P.(C)393./.200	7&'C.iVi.No	.713/2007
		AN! L,AGGAILW	AL	Petitioner
			Through Iversus	None.
		M.C.D.& ORS.		P.cspondents
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa..AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma.AdvocateforDDA.
	H	W.P.(C)394/200	7& C..M.No	.715/2007
		RAJINDERGOE	L	Petitioner
			Through	None,
			versus
		M.C.D.&ORS.		.....Respondents
		I	'{Trough	Mr.AjayAroraa.AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma.AdvocateforDDA.

¶8

Ww. 131195-/S918/2006, 14974-/4978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006. 142-144,'2007, 393394/2007. 421-422.72007, 496-499/2007, 5/7/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 621/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, /396/2007, 1647/2007. /649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-1488/21)07, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 A 4498/2007 t'(i^<'2ofl8

kr''-'

V-

f	W.P.(C)421/2007	&C.M.No.	755/2007
	RAJNINASSA			Petitioner
		Through	None,
		versus
	MCD&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.AjayAroraa, Mr.AjayVerma.	AdvocateforMCD. AdvocateforDDA.
+	W.P.(C)422/2007	&C.M.No	.757/2007
	ASHWIN!ICAPO	OR		Petitioner
		Through versus	None,
	MCD&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.AjayAroraa, Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforMCD. AdvocateforDDA.
4	W.P.(C)496/2007	&C.M.No	.897/2007
	SANJIVKUMAR	JAIN		Petitioner
		Through versus	None,
	MCD&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
			Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
4	W.IT(C)497/2007	&C.M.No	.899/2007
	VTNODKUMAR	SHARMA		'Petitioner
	.	Through versus	None,
	MCD&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
-I	W.P.(C)498/2007	&C.M.No	Mr.AjayVerma. .905/2b07	AdvocateforDDA.
	RAI&SONSP.L	TD.		Petitioner
		Through versus	None,
	M.C.D.&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
			Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.

¶13

H'.r.(C) ;V«,v. 13895-l3')IS/2006, I4974-N97H/2006, 15120/2006. 15717/2006. 142-144/2007. .193394/2007. 421-422/2007. 496-499/2007. 517/2007. 540/2007, 569/2007. 573/2007, 622/2007. 6311640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007. 2995/2007, 4I2H/200 7, 4365/200 7. 4482-448.1/2007. 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007 4491/1007 & Pu,,3.>fl8

¶14

A',' I

¶15

¶16

	+	W.P.(C)499/2007	&C.M.No	.907/2007
		RAKESHGULAT	I		Petitioner
			Through versus	None,
		M.C.D.&ORS.			Respondents
^			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
	+	W.P.(C)517/2007	&G.M.NO.	953/2007
		SUMITRATHOR	&ORS.		Petitioners
			Through versus	None,
		M.C.D.&ORS.			Respondents
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
	+	W.P.(C)540/2007	&C.M.No	.1003/2007
		RAJEEVKUKRE	JA		Petitioner
			Through versus	None,
		MCD&ORS.			Respondents
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
^				Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
	+	W.P.(C)569/2007	&C.M.No	.1051/2007
		KAILASHDEVI			.....Petitioner
			Through versus	None,
		MCD&ORS.			Respondents
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
	+	W.P.(C)573/2007	&C.M.No	.1057/2007
		SANTOSHKUM	ARVERM	A	Petitioner
			Through	None,
			versus
		MCD&ORS.			Respondents
			Through	Mr.A.jayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.

¶17

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, 1647/2007. 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 4 of 18

•'V

W: S:'"

+ W.P.(C)622/2007&C.M.N0.1	152/2007
GAGANCHOPRA		Petitioner
Thi-Qugh	None,
versus
MOD&ORS		Respondents
Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMOD.
	Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
i- W.P.(C)638/2007&C.M.N0.	II71/2007
ANDNDSWAROOPNAYYA	R	Petitioner
Through versus	None,
MOD&ORS		Respondents
Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMOD.
	Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
4 W.P.(C)639/2007c&C.M.No.	l173/2007
VIRJiNDERKUMAR		Petitioner
Through versus	None,
MCD&ORS		Respondents
Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMOD.
	Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
-1- W.P.(C)640/2007&C.M.No.	1175/2007
RA.inSHKUMARKHOSLA		Petitioner
Through versus	None,
MOD&ORS		Respondent
Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMOD.
H W.P.(C)642/2007&C.M.No.	Mr.AjayVerma. l180/2007	AdvocateforDDA.
M/SBHIKAvMCHANDBAID		Petitioner
Through versus	None,
iViCD&ORS		Respondent
Through	Mr.Ajay.Aroraa,	AdvocateforMOD.
	Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.

¶22

yi'.P.(C) Nos. !3}{'J5-13918/2006, 1497^-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 tC 'l'u^e5ofl8

¶23

	+	W.P.(C)752/200	7&C.M.N	o.1410/2007
		BONANZOENG	G.&CHE	MICALSP.LT	Petitioner
			Through	None,
			versus
		M.C.D.&ORS.			Respondent
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
%				Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
	+	W.P.(C)753/200	7& C.M.N	o.1412/2007
		NAVEEN.TAIN	&ANR		Petitioner
			Through	None,
			versus
		MCD&ORS.			....Respondent
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
	t-	W.P.(C)754/200 .lAGDISHMALH	7&C.M.N OTRA&	o.1414/2007 ANR	Petitioner
			Through ^'ersus	None.
		MCT)&ORS.			Respondents
	•+	W.P.(C)1191/20	Through 07& C.M.	Mr.AjayAroraa, Mr.AjayVerma. No.2117/2007	AdvocateforMCD. AdvocateforDDA.
		D1LIPSINGHG	HOLCHA		Petitioner
			Through versus	None,
		M.C.D.&ORS.			Respondents
			Througli	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma.	AdvocateforDDA.
	H	W.P.(C)1396/2(H	)7&C.M.	No.2556/2007
		DHANIRAMMI	TTAL		Petitioner
			'through versus	None,
		M.C.D.&ORS.			Respondent
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.

¶24

W'.z-'.I'O ;\V«. l3S'J5-13')IH/200(>, l4974-N')78/2006, 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. 1/91/2007. 1396/2007, 164 7/2007. i/,49. 1651/2007, 17/6/2007. 2995/2007, 4/28/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483./2007. 4485-4488/2007. 4490-^492/2007. 4495/2007 '''l'fS/2007 h,j;e6qf/8

¶25

IS' 4

¶26

	+	W.P.(C)1647/20	07& C.M.N	os.3028/2007& 16429/2013
		K.L.J.RESOURC	ESLTD.&	ORS. Petitioners
			Through versus	Mr.KuljeetRawal,Adv.
		M.C.D.&ORS.		Respondents
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa.AdvocateforMOD.
%				Mr.AjayVerraa.AdvocateforDDA.
	+	W.P.(C)1649/20	07& C.M.N	o.3032/2007
		DEPENDABLE	CONSUME	RGOODSP.lt Petitioner
			Through versus	Mr.KuljeetRawal,Adv.
		M.C.D.&ORS.		Respondents
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMOD.
				Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
	+	W.P.(C)1650/20 SUMERMALPA	07& C.M.N TAWARI	o.3034/2007 TRUST Petitioner
			Through versus	Mr.KuljeetRawal.Adv.
		M.C.D.&ORS.		Respondents
			fhroLigh	Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
	't-	W.P.(C)1651/20 ASHULOKTRA	07& C.M.N DERSP.L	o.3036/2007 TD.&ORS. Petitioners
			Through versus	Mr.KuljeetRawal,Adv.
^		M.C.D.&ORS.		Respondents
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD.
	i	W.P.(C)1716/20	07	Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
		D.D.INDUSTRIE	SLTD	' Petitioner
			Through	None,
			versus
		M.C.D&ORS		Respondent
			Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD.
				Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.

¶27

5fe." "A-'

¶28

W/.P.fQ AV«. 13895-13918/2006, J4974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 157/7/2006, 142-144/2007, W- 394/2007. 421-422/2007. 496-499/2007. 5/7/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007 638640/2007. 642/2007, 752-754/2007, //9//2007, /396/2007, /647/2007, /649- I65//2007, /7/6/2007. 2995/2007. 4/28/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007 4495/2007 A 4498/2007

„ 7 _ of /8

fi/

+	W.P.(C)2995/2007&C.M. HARBHA.TANBARHA&	No.5607/2007 ANR Petitioners
	Through versus	None,
	MCD	Respondent
	Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
+	W.P.(C)4128/2007& C.M.N NAJAFGARHROADINDU	os.7776/2007,10826/2007& 2814/2008 STRIESASSO Petitioner
	Through versus	Ms.NandniSahni,Adv.
	M.C.D.	Respondent
	Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
+	W.P.(C)4365/2007& C.M.	No.8184/2007
	AMARNATHPASRICHA	Petitioner
	Through versus	None,
	MCD&ORS.	Respondents
	Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
+	W.P.(C)4482/2007&C.M. A.RZOOINDUSTRIES	Nos.8384/2007,3571/2008&1793/2009 Petitioner
	Through versus	None,
	M.C.D.&ORS.	Respondents
	Through	Mr.MukeshGupta,StandingCounsel withMr.ChetanGautam,Advfor MCD.
		Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
H-	W.P.(C)4483/2007&C.M. MEGHAENTERPRISES Through versus	Nos.8386/2007& 3572/2008 Petitioner None.

¶33

ir.P.(C) Nos. 13895-13918/2006, N974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573^007, 622/20oi 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 & Pa,c8ofl8

¶34

¶35

	M.C.D.&ORS. Through	Respondents Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
+	W.P.(C)4485/2007&C.M. R.K.CHEMICALWORKS	Nos.8389/2007&3579/2008 Petitioner
	Through versus	None,
	M.C.D.&ORS.	Respondents
	Through	Mr.AjayAroraa.AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
-I-	W.P.(C)4486/2007&C.M. UNTPLASTIND.	Nos.8391/2007& 3570/2008 Petitioner
	Through versus	None,
	M.C.D.&ORS.	Respondents
	Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD. Mr.A^jayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
•+	V/.P.(C)4487/2007&C.M. KONICAINDUSTRIES	Nos.8393/2007& 3575/2008 Petitioner
	Through versus M.C.D.&ORS.	None, Respondents
	Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
V	W.P.(C)4488/2007&C.M. ABBAINDUSTRIES	Nos.8395/2007& 3573/2008 Petitioner
	Through versus	None
	.M.C.D.&ORS.	Respondents
	Through	Mr.AjayAroraa.AdvocateforMCD.
V	W.P.(C)4490/2007&C.M. .II.IPITORELECTRICALS ThrouL'h	Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA. Nos.8399/2007& 3577/2008 Petitioner None.

¶36

ir.r.(C) I3fl95-i39in/2(m. N97'i-l4')7H/2im, I5l2U/2tm, 15717/2006, l-i2-14i/2(l07, 393394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007. 517/2007, 540/2007. 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 63S640/200.7, 642/2007, 752-754,2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1651/2007. 1716/2007. 2995/2007, 412H/2007, 4365/2007, 44H2-4483/2007, 4485-44HS/2007, 4490-4492^2007. -4495/2007 A 4498/200'' Pni''/9<)flS

¶37

fM'

¶38

		M.C.D.&ORS.	versus Through	Respondents Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
	+	W.P.(C)4491/200 JAINSTEEL M.C.D.&ORS.	7&C.M. Through 'ersiis Through	Nos.8401/2007& 3574/2008 Petitioner None. Respondents Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
V	f	W.P.(C)4492/200 JAINGENERAL M.C.D.&ORS.	7&C.M. Through versus Through	Nos.8403/2007& 3576/2008 Petitioner None, Respondents Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
	+	W.,P.(C)4495/200 RELIABLEPRIN	7&C.M. TINGIN Through	Nos.8408/2007,8409/2007&3570/2008 KCO. Petitioner None.
		M.C.D.&ORS.	versus Through	Respondents Mr.AjayAroraa.AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma.AdvocateforDDA.
	H	W.P.(C)4498/20 7943/2010 MALHOTRAEN I M.C.D.&ORS.	07&C.M. TERPRIS Through versLus	Nos.8414/2007,3578/2008,i794/2009& ES Petitioner None. Respondents

¶39

H''.P.(C) !\os. 13895-13918/21106, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007. 517/2007, 540/2007, 509/2007. 573/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007. 642/2007. 752-754/2007. 1191/2007, 1396/2007. 1647/:'007, 1649- 1651/2007. 1716/2007. 2995/2007. 4128/200?. 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492.0007, 4495/2007 ,>i 4498.0007 i0(ifl8

¶40

tv^

¶41

Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for MOD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. + W.P.(C) 6973/2007 & C.M. No. 13229/2007 SAEEDA KHATOON SIDDIQUI & ORS Petitioners Through Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. versus

¶42

MCD Respondent Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.

¶43

CORAM:

¶44

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶45

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral) 1 Vide this common judgment, the aforenoted bunch of writ petitions

¶46

shall he disposed of.

¶47

2 The petitioners before 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 extensive industries with large industrial plots. It is also not in dispute that each of these plots were sub-divided into several plots. The case of the petitioner is that their building plans were purportedly sanctioned by the Coiporation i.e. erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi (now represented by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). Their revised building plans wore also approved and sanctioned. Property tax had been deposited by

¶48

!V.P.(C) l/os. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006. 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 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

¶49

them. Individual petitioners had purchased their individual plots from the erstwhile owners. Since these industrial plots 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 individual petitioners and the erstwhile owners. Property tax and house tax were also being paid by the petitioners. Conveyance deeds had also been executed by the DDA in favour of the petitioners for conversion of the lease hold rights in these properties into free-hold. The petitioners had 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 alleged illegal mis-user. These writ petitions were accordingly filed.

¶50

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-divided status of an original plot cannot be granted any recognition by the Corporation.

¶51

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

¶52

IV.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, 1647/2007, 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 ^^98/2007 Page 12 of 18

¶53

recommendations of the Monitoring Committee that the proposed action had been taken against the properties of the petitioners. The Single Judge of this Court had directed the matter to be listed along with the connected petition i.e. W.P. (C) No.4589/2003 Kalvan Sanstha Matter to be listed before the Division Bench. Till that time, status quo was directed to be maintained.

¶54

5 The petitioners before the Division Bench had undertaken that all illegal deviations/constructions would be demolished by themselves voluntarily. This monitoring continued before the Division Bench.

¶55

6 The Division Bench had disposed of this writ petition on 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:-

¶56

" 7.6.1 Existing Planned Industrial Areas

¶57

These industrialized areas were developed in the 7()'s and over the years, have deteriorated considerable in terms of physical infrastructure and, in some cases deficiencies on this score have persisted in an overall sense. Besides, there have been changes in the. nature of activities in some of the areas and there have also been demands for using part of the plots for activities, which could be classified as commercial. There may also be a need to see whether further densification is possible in terms of creating

¶58

W.P.(Q Nos. l3895-I3'JIfl/2()0f). 14974-14978/2006. 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 57.3/2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-751/2007. 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 A 4498/2007 Panels of 18

¶59

¶60

„'i,f' I ' 'i

¶61

smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number of industries/units. Guidelines for redevelopment of existing industrial areas shall be framed within 2 years by DDA in consultation with GNCTD and the local body. Till such time, the existing sub divisions may continue.

¶62

There is, therefore, a need for modernization and up-gradation of the existing industrial areas with due regard to environmental considerations. Since most of the Industrial areas are located along the Mass Public Transport Corridors, there is also a needfor optimizing the use around these areas through the process of redevelopment.

¶63

This process of upgradation and redevelopment will 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. "

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

9 The Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri (as his Lordship then was) was of the view that since guidelines for redevelopment of existing

¶67

W.P.(Q No.s. I3S95-139I8/2006, I4974-H97S/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, 1047/2007, 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 14 of 18

¶68

k' I

¶69

:.,rr ,f;

¶70

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.

¶71

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.

¶72

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.

¶73

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

¶74

M'.P.(C} Vav. l3S95-l39IS/2(m, I4974-1497(1/2006, 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, 63S640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007. 4123/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & 4498/2007 Page 15 of 18

¶75

\1-v

¶76

"f'' ' i' f

¶77

not in dispute that these Regulations would be applicable to the properties of the petitioners.

¶78

13 Clause 2.3 of these Regulations is relevant, it reads herein as under:. "Redevelopment of Existing Planned Industrial Areas through sub-division of plots.

¶79

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 of sub-divided plots shall collectively prepare and submit the Layout plan to Local Body for approval along Mnth the required mandatory documents as per BBL/to the satisfaction of the Local Body. "

¶80

14 These Regulations thus recognize the existence of smaller plots by sub-division from the larger plots. The owners of the sub-divided plots have been directed to collectiyely prepare and submit a layout plan to the local body along with the required mandatory documents to the satisfaction of 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 development control norms given in the Guidelines/Regulations.

¶81

W.P.(C) No.s. I3895-I39I8/2006, 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 & 4498/2007 Page 16 of 18

¶82

15 In view of formulation ol" these Regulations, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they would seek permission of this Court to withdraw their petitions with liberty granted to them to approach the local body. They are permitted to do so.

¶83

1---

¶84

16 y^These petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to 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.

¶85

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

¶86

18 The applications of the petitioners will be considered in accordance with law and approval of the layout plan will be answered by the local body in accordance with law. The sanction of the building plan on the individual plot.s will, therealier be governed by MPD-2()21 development control norms.

¶87

fr.r.(C) l\os. I3895-139I8/J006. l4974-l'f>):'H/2006, 15120/2,W). !5717/2006. 142-144/2007, .193394/2007. 421-422/2007. 496-499/2007. 517/2007. 540/2007, 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, 4490-4492/2007. 4495.^2007 A 4498/2007 „Pnm; I / oj 18

¶88

\n)

¶89

¶90

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 sei-vice). Needless to state that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent, they may take steps in accordance with law.. This order is passed without prejudice to the respective Hghts and contentions of the parties. ^

¶91

20 Petitions disposed of in the above terms. ^

! (

. INfcERM EETKAUR, J

FEB'RUARY06,2017 A

-tci

W.P.{Q Nos. 13895-139]S/2006, N974-I49 78/2006, I5I20/2006, I57/V2(m, 142-144/2007. 7,93394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, S73.'2007, 622/2007, 638640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 164V2007. 1649- 1(,51/20<I7, 1716/2007. 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488./2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & 4498/200 7 8 of 18

Jeevan Jyoti Enterprises P.Ltd v. MCD & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevan Jyoti Enterprises P.Ltd v. MCD & 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.

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

Inspiration Dealers P.Ltd. Vs MCD & Ors.