Disposed

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

Delhi HC6 Feb 2017W.P.(C)/144/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Holders of sub-divided industrial plots sought protection against municipal action. The court permitted withdrawal and disposed of the petitions with three months to submit collective layout plans for approval. It barred coercive action for three months from communication of the local body's order.

What did the court decide?

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

Hum Log Traders P.Ltd. Vs MCD & Ors. — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DEI HI AT NEW DELHI % Dale ofJudgment: 06.02.2017 W.P.(C) No.l3895-918/2006 & C.M'. Nos. 10894/2006, 13430/2006 & 13431/2006 ANIL DLWAN & OTHLRS Petitioners Through None, versus MUNICIPAL. CORP OF DFLHI & ANR Respondents Through Mr.AJa)' Aroraa. Advocate for MOD. Mr.Ajay Verma. AdN'ocaie for DDA. i VV.P.(C) 14974-978/2006 DINESH KUMAR & ORS. Petitioners Through None, versus MCO & ANR Respondents IliroLigh Mr.A\ja3' Aroraa, Advocate for MOD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. t W.P.(C) 15120.'2006 & C.M. No. 12066/2006 IIARISH CHANDl./R SLTHI Petitioner fhroLigh Mr.Manish Srivaslava anci Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, .Advocaies. versus MCD & ANR Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocitc for DDA. W.P.(C) 15717/2006 &(\M. No. 12591/2006 MINAKSHI TRtv'TDl Pciitione!' hroLigh Mr.iViao.ish Srivastavu and Mr. Ashok K Dinar iSharma. Advoeaies. versus MCD & ANR Respondentr, Through Mr.AJa;- ^.roraa, .Advocate for M(/D N'lr Ajay Verma. Advoc:;.it;" lor DD.A.

¶3

•(.!'.((! ^'os. U89S-IJ9lS//m:. /.V/2//0.'AVrt. ■^ ?/^42272(!07, 496-4')4.'2nv7, 3!V2'll:7. :'t4;l/2f!'i : :

¶4

/.V/2//0.'AVrt. I>7!7'2(I(I6. <42-142.QUO?, 343:'t4;l/2f!'i : : i (,22/2'W'. 638i39iu.m>7 OOy 2iH7. HO': l6>:/70i'7. IJIVifur. '00'. I4'y//20l!'>, 4493/2007 -: of !3

¶5

'■■'HiOMr, M2,2007, 732-7:U2'i'r, ::9 0/2''47. 4128/200?, 43r;}.20fr. i487-448:. - '00'.

¶6

i.i'iS/.r'.H T

¶7

¶8

i W.P.(C) 142/2007 & C.M. No.256/2007 •IHEVAN JYOTl 1-N2 ERPRISES P.LTD PetiUoncr , Through Mr. Maneesh Goyal, Adv. versus M(. J) & ORS. Respondents rhroLigh Mr.Ajay .Aroraa, Advocate lor MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. ) W.P.(C) 143/2007 & C.M. No.258/20o7 iNSPIR.ATlON DEALERS P.LTD. Petitioner i'hioLigli Mr. Maneesh Goyal, Adv. versus MC D & (ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajav Verma. .Advocate for DD.. i W P.(C) 144/2007 /t C.M. No.260/2007 I I! iM LOG TRADERS P.LTD. Petitioner 1 hrough Mr. Maneesh GoyaL Ai\v. versus MC I .' & ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. .Advocate for DDA. + W.iL(C) 393/2007 & C.M. No.7l 3/2007 . v N! 1. AGc lARVVAL Petitioner Through None, versus M.C..D. & ORS .. .. Respondents ilirough Mr..Ajay Aroi-aa. .Advocate lor MCD. Mr.Aiay Verma. Advocate for !)D/v. i W.P.(C) 394/2007 C.M. No.71 .V2007 !M.nNDLR C30LI . Petitioner Through None, versus !\1.(...D. & ORS. Respondents 'i'hitvagh Mr.Ajav .Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA.

¶9

fl'fOi; }.m>-l}9im(l06, 149-^4-14978/2006. 15120/2006, 'Sn7/2<i06. 142-144/200''. 594594.'200'' 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 410/2007, SOO/^tW, 573/2007 /■22/2007, 638640/200'', 642/2007, 752-754/2007, I!91'200I, 1396/2007, 164V2007, 1649- 1651/2007. I7J6/20H7. 2995/2007, 4128/2007. 4365/2007, 448:-4483/2007, 4484 /188/2007, 4490-4497/2007, 4495/206'' 4498/200/ ,? ,,f !8

-I

"onpipnRiipp

> W.P.(C)421/2007	& C.M.No	.755/2007
RAJNINASSA				Petitioner
	Through	None,
MCD&ORS.	versus			Respondents
	Through	Mr.Ajay	Aroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
		Mr.Aja}'	Verma.	AdvocateforDDA.
-I W.P.(C)422/2007	&C.M.N	o.757/2007
ASHWINlKAPCX	TR			Petitioner
	Through versus	None,
MCD&ORS.				Respondents
	Through	Mr.Ajay	Aroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
		Mr.Ajay	Verma,	AdvocateforDDA.
+ W.P.(C)496/2007	&C.M.No	.897/2007
SAN,I1VKUMAR.	IAIN			Petitioner
	Through	None,
	versus
VICD&ORS.				Respondents
	Through	Mr.Ajay	Aroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
		Mr..Ajay	Verma.	AdvocateforDDA.
I W.P.(C)497/2007	&C.M.No	.899/2007
VINODKUMAR	SHARMA Through versus	None,	•.	•Petitioner
MCD&ORS.				Respondents
	fhrough	Mr.Ajay	Aroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
		Mr.Ajay	Verma.	AdvocateforDDA.
■I W.P.(C)498/2007	&C.M.N	o.90V2007
-.-'fi RAI&SONSP.L	TD.			Petitioner
	Through	None,
	versus
M.C.D.&ORS.				Respondents
	Through	Mr.Ajay	Aroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
		Mr.Ajay	Verma.	AdvocateforDDA.

¶14

H.r.(C) ,V/M. n^95-l.19l8/2006, 14974-14978/2006. 15120/2006. 15717/2006. 142-144/2007, .193394/2007 421-422/2007. 496-499/2007. 517/2007. 540/200 7, 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, 4490-449 ^/OO) 4492/7007 A

¶15

3.1 18

¶16

¶17

I	W.P.(C)499/2007	&C.M.No	.907/2007
	RAKESHGULAT	I		Petitioner
		Through versus	None,
	IM.C.D.&ORS.			Respondents
1		Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvoeateforMCD.
-			Mr.AjayVerma.	AdvocateforDDA.
+	W.P.(C)517/2007	&C.M.No	.953/2007
	SUMITRATHOR	&ORS.		Petitioners
		Through	None,
		versus
	M.C.D.&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.AjayAroraa.	AdvocateforMCD.
			Mr.AjayVenna,	AdvocateforDDA.
+	W.P.(C)540/2007	&.C.M.No	.1003/2007
	RA.1EEVKUKRE.	1A		Petitioner
		Through	None,
		versus
	MCD&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.AjayAroraa.	AdvocateforMCD.
			Mr.AjayVerma.	AdvocateforDDA.
+	W.P.(C)569/2007	&C.M.No	.1051/2007
	KAILASHDEVI			Petitioner
		Through	None.
		versus
	MCD&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.AjayAroraa.	AdvocateforMCD.
			Mr.AjayVerma.	AdvocateforDDA.
+	W.P.(C)573/2007	&C.M.No	.1057/2007
	SANTOSHKUMA	RVERMA		Petitioner
		Through	None,
		versus
	■MCD&ORS.			Respondents
		Through	Mr.AjayAroraa.	AdvocateforMCD.
			Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.

¶18

\y.P.(n !\0S. 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. 569/200 / 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 & 4498/200^ Page 4 of 18

¶19

f W.P.(C)622/2007&C.M.No	. 1152/2007
GAGANCHOPRA
rhroLigh	None,
versus
"f'O&ORS		Respondents
Through	Mr.AJayAroraa,	AdvocateibrMCD.
	Mr.AjayVerma.	AdvocateforDDA.
W.P.(C)638/2007&C.M.No	.1171/2007
ANDNDSWAROOPNAYYA	R	Petitioner
Through	None,
versus
&ORS		Respondents
Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
	Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
I W.P.(C)639/2007&C.M.No.	l173/2007
VIRENDERKUMAR		Petitioner
Through	None.
versus
MCD&ORS		Respondents
Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
	Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
+ W.P.(C)640/2007& ,C.M.No. RAJESHKUMARKEIOSEA	1175/2007	Petitioner
Through versus	None,
!vKD&ORS		Respondent
Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
	Mr.AjayVerma.	AdvocateforDDA.
I W.P.(C)642/2007&C.M.No.	1180/2007
M;SBEIIKAMCEIANDBAID		Petitioner
Through versus	None,
MC.D&ORS		Respondent
Through	Mr.Ajay.Aroraa,	Advocatefoi'MCD.
	Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.

¶20

•I

¶21

¶22

».P.(C) \os. l3H95-l39Ili/2006, 14974-I497H/2006, 151211/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007 391394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007. (,3S640/200 7, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, II9I/2007. 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2991/2007, 4I2H/2007, 4365/2007, 44S2-44S3/2007, 44H5-4403/2007, 449(1-4492/2007, 4495/2007

¶23

ruoeiofIS

¶24

¶25

^ W.P.(C)752/2007&C.M.N BONANZOENGG.&CHE	o.1410/2007 MICALSP.LT	Petitioner
Through	None,
versus Through	Mr.AjayAroraa, Mr.AjayVerma.	AdvocateTorMCD. AdvocateforDDA.
I W.P.(C)753/2007&C.M.N	o.1412/2007
NAVEEN.IAIN&ANR
Through	None,
versus ■^^■D&ORS.		....Respondem
Through	Mr.AjayAroraa.	AdvocateforMCD.
	Mr.AjayVerma,	AdvocateforDDA.
' W.P.(C)754/2007&C.M.N JAGDISHMALi-lOTRA&	o.1414/2007 ANR	Petitioner
Through N'crsus	None.
Through	Mr.AjayAroraa.	, ,Respondents AdvocateforMCD.
^^■.P.(C)1191/2007&C.M.	Mr.AjayVerma. No.2117/^007	AdvocateforDDA.
DILIPSINGHGHOECHA		PeiiUoncr
Through	None,
versus
MCD.&ORS.		Respondents
Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
t W.P.tC)1396./2(H)7&C.M.	Mr.AjayVerma. No.2556/Z007	AdvocateforDDA.
DHANIRAMMITTAI		Petitioner
Through	None,
versus M.C.D.&ORS.		Respondent
Through	Mr.AjayAroraa,	AdvocateforMCD.
	Mr.AjayVerma.	AdvocateforDDA.

¶26

n-t'.K) \os. UH'1>-I39IH/2(W(U l4974-l497>l/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, l47-l44/70fn 594/200^ 421-422/200 7, 496-499/200 7 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622^2007 'oW640/200/. 642/2007, 752-754/2007. II9I..'200?. 1396/2007, 1647/2007, ,649- 16^1.2007 }-,6/70'r 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007 4482-m.V2007. 4485-4488/2007, 1490-^.497/7007 4495'7o'r; t 44^82007 ei

¶27

ei 6 t -f ,8

¶28

+ W.P.(C)1647/20	07&C.M.N	os.3028/2007&16429/2013
KX.,I.RES0URC	ESLTD.& Ihiough versus	ORS. .,pixioners Mr.KuljeetRawal,Adv.
M.C.D.&ORS.	inroLigh	o , Respondents Mr.AjayAroraa.AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
W.P.(C)1649/20 DEPENDABLEC M.C.D.&ORS.	07&C.M.N ONSUME Through versus 1hroLigh	o.3032/2007 RGOODSP.LT Petitioner Mr.KuljeetRawal,Adv. n . Respondents Mr.AjayAroraa.AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma.AdvocateforDDA.
+ W.P.(C)1650/20 SUMERMALPA ^	07&C.M.N T.AWARIT Through	o.3034/2007 RUST Petitioncr Mr.KuljeetRawal.Adv.
M.C.D.&ORS.	versus Through	„ . Respondents Mr.AjayAroraa.AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
' W.P.(C)1651/200 ASHULOKtra	7&C.M.N dersp.lt Through	o.3036/2007 d.&ORS. Petitioners Mr.KuljeetRawal.Adv.
M.C.D.&ORS. A W.P.(C)1716/200	versus 1hroLigh 7	nRespondents Mr.AjayAroraa,AdvocateforMCD M^AiayVerma,AdvocateforDDA.
IT.D.INDUSTRI ''-f>&ORS	ESLTD IhroLigli versus 1hrough	None, Mr.AjayAroraa,.AdvocateforMCD. Mr.AjayVerma.AdvocateforDDA.
.94/2007.421-422/2007.496-4	99/200^.517/2	15120/2006, 15717/2006,142^144/200-W- 007.540/2007.569/2007.471/m7622/07Z
TU»7 '		««-'«/«»?.■im.44nm«7.u9572«ni 7of18

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) 2995/2007 & C.M. No.5607/2007 ITARBHAJAN BARHA & ANR Petitioners Through None, versus Respondent Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. + W.P.(C) 4128/2007 & C.M.Nos.7776/2007, 10826/2007 & 2814/2008 NAJAFGARI4 ROAD INDUSTRIES ASSO Petitioner Through Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. versus Respondent Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.

¶31

.i-i -f-

¶32

W.P.(C) 4365/2007 C.M. No.8184/2007 AMARNATH PASRICHA Petitioner Through None. versus MCD & ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 4482/2007 & C.M. Nos.8384/2007. 3571/2008 & 1793/2009 ARZOO INDUSTRIES Petitioner Through None. versus M.C.D. &ORS. Respondents Through Mr. Mukcsh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chctan Gautam, Adv for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 4483/2007 & C.M. Nos.8386/2007 & 3572/2008 MEGHA ENTERPRISES Petitioner Through None, versus

¶33

li.P.fC) yos. 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 A 4498/200-' Pa^e8ofl8

¶34

\v<br>

¶35

M.C.D. & ORS. Respondents Through Mr.AJay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. + W.P.(C) 4485/2007 & C.M. Nos.8389/2007 & 3579/2008 R.K.CHEMICAL WORKS Petitioner

¶36

fhroLigh None, versus Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.

¶37

M.C.D. & ORS. Respondents

¶38

-r

¶39

W.P.(C) 4486/2007 & C.M. Nos.8391/2007 & 3570/2008 UNI PLASf IND.

¶40

Petitioner

¶41

Through None, versus Respondents fhroLigh Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA.

¶42

M.C.D. & ORS. Respondents

I .|.

W.P.(C) 4487/2007 & C.M. Nos.8393/2007 & 5575/2008 KONICA INDUSTRIES Petitioner

¶47

Through None, versus M.C.D. & ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for E)DA. W.P.(C) 4488/2007 & C.M. Nos.8395'2007 & 3573./2008 ABBA INDUSTRIES Petitioner Through None versus M.C.D. & ORS. Respondent Through Mr.Ajay .Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, A.dvocate for DDA. VV.P.(C) 4490/2007 & C.M. Nos.8399/2007 & 3577/2008 .11 ipn OR ELEC fRICAf S Petitioner Thrciugh None

¶48

ir.r.iC) i.m5-!39i:i2(m, N9''4-i4'rmi)06, 15120/2006, 1571V2006, 142-141/2007, 393394/2002 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007. 509.2007, 573/2007. (•.22/2007', 638642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007 1649- 1651/2007. 1716/2007. 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-4483^2007. .4485-4188/2007. 4490.4492'200/. 4495/2007 A /V/'." V of ■HW20(r •

¶49

versus M.C.D. & ORS. Respondents rhroLigh Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. + W.P.(C) 4491/2007 & C.M. Nos.8401/2007 & 3574/2008 JAIN STEEL Petitioner fhroLigh None, versus M.C.D.& ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate tor DD.A. 1 W.P.(C) 4492/2007 & C.M. Nos.8403/2007 & 3576/2008 JAIN GENERAL Petitioner Through None, versus M.C.D. & ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Aiav Verma. Advocate for DDA. > + W p,(C) 4495/2007 & C.M. Nos.8408/2007, 8409/2007 & 3570/2008 RE]JA}3LE PRINTING INK CO. Petitioner Through None versus M.C.D. & ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate foi M( D. Mr.Aja> Verma. .Advficate tor DDA. s W.P.(C) 4498/2007 & C.M. Nos.8414/2007. 357S/2008. i 794/2009 & 7943/2010 MAf HOTRA ENTERPRISES Petilioner T'hroiigh None, versus M.C.D.& ORS. Respondents

¶50

H t',n y,n !4y74-N97S/2006, r5120/2(m>. l5W200f,. I42-I44/200Z .'W394}^>!r. 42,-422/200^. 496-490/200?. 5,7/2007. 540/200/ 5^9^00/ 573/200/ 622n007. 63H640/200/ 642/2007. 752-^54/2007. 1191/2007. 1396/2007, '64/7'00-, ,649- I6?l,200/ ■y99S'70(r 4nH/200?. 4365/200 / 44H2-44H3.'200/ 44S5-44SH.'2007. 4490-449272007. 449^/200/ '0 of if' 449¥.'.'00'

¶51

Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for MCD. 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

¶52

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

¶53

CORAM:

¶54

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶55

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

¶56

shall be disposed of.

¶57

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 Corporation i.e. erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi (now represented by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). Their revised building plans were also approved and sanctioned. Property tax had been deposited by

¶58

W.P.fC) ,'os. 13895-13918/2006, N974-14978/2006. 15120/2006. l5'n/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 & PlIL'i' 11 of 18 4498/200'

¶59

¶60

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 cairying 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 tiled.

¶61

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.

¶62

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

¶63

H'./'.rO Vav. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-N978/2006, 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, 6.18640/2007, 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 12 of 18

¶64

recommendations of the Monitoring Committee that the proposed action had been taken against the properties of the petitioners, f'he 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.

¶65

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

¶66

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:-

¶67

" 7.6.1 Existing Planned Industrial Areas

¶68

These industrialized areas were developed in the 70'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 densifiication is possible in terms of creating

¶69

W.P.(C) AVw. 13895-1J9I8/20U6. 149 74-14978/201)6, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, .W394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 57.1200^, 622.2007, 638640/2007, (>42/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007 1649- 1651/2007, ri6.2007. 2995/200", 4128/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-448.1/2007, 4485-4488/2007. 4490-4492/2007. 4495/2007 A 4498/200" I-' I'f If

¶70

^fvAa

¶71

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 existine sub divisions may continue.

¶72

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.

¶73

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. "

¶74

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

¶75

8 Ihe Court of Hon'ble Ms. Justice 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.

¶76

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

¶77

H:P.(C) I\o.s. I3S95-l39l8/2im, N97-^-t39-^8/2006, 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, tI9I/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 14 of 18

¶78

)l^

¶79

industrial units are yet to be Ibrmulated by the policy makers and these eommercial 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.

¶80

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

¶81

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.

¶82

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

¶83

M'.P.(() ' 0S. 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, 638640/200 7, 642/200 7, 752-754/200 7, 1191/200 7, 1396/200 7, 164 7/200 7, 1649- 1651/200 7, 1716/200 7, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 A 4498/2007

¶84

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

¶85

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.

¶86

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 with the required mandatory documents as per BBL/to the satisfaction of the Local Body. "

¶87

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 collectively 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.

¶88

H: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 "f

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

¶93

16 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 lor 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.

¶94

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

¶95

18 t he 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 plots Will, thereafter be governed by MPf)-2021 developmenl control norms.

¶96

H.J'Ja Wm. 13895-1^91H/JOO,') I4974-M97H/2006, 15120/20(10. I5717.'2(m. 142-1 14/2007, 393394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007. 517/2007. 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 635640/2007, (>42/2007, 752-754/2007. 1I91./2007, 1396/2007. 1647/2007. 1649. 1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/200", 4490-4492.Q007. 4495.1^)07 4498/2007 Pum: 17 of 18

¶97

¶98

19 After an order has been passed by the local body, no coercive action shah 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 ot this order to the petitioners (which may be by reeistered A..D. post, courier or any mode of accepted sei*vice). Needless to state that if the pi..titioneis ate aggrieved by the action ot the respondent, they may take steps in accordance with law. This order is passed without preiudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties.

¶99

20 Petitions disposed of in the above terms.

¶100

INDER VfEf:T KALIR,.)

¶101

FEBRUARY 06, 2017

¶102

— ^ n cjso ' / 4 ® ^2-/1 ? - his) P ^ ^ (jp L( - 2. <5^ 2

¶103

n'.P.(C) VV«. 1389>I3918/2006, 14974-N97H/2006, 15120/2006, i57IV2006, 142-144/2007 .I03. 394/200", 421-422/2007, 490-499/2007, 5r/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007. 622/2007, 6U640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007. 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1649- 1651/2007 1716/2007. 2995/2007. 4128/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-/483/2007. 4485-4488,■ 2007. 4490-44<)T-i;i)7 ./jVy-VW'l^n/2007 l'a,c :8o;i8

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hum Log Traders 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.

Jeevan Jyoti Enterprises P.Ltd Vs MCD & Ors.