Residents Welfare Association Regd. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 8578/2025(DELAY 6 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL) CM APPL. 8580/2025(DELAY 10 DAYS IN REFILING APPEAL)

3. Cause shown is sufficient.

4. Application is allowed and the delay in filing and refilling the appeal is condoned.

5. Application stands disposed of.

6. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent impugning the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned single judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 1215 of 2017 captioned Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) and Ors. vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors., whereby the learned single judge had dismissed the prayer for directing demolition of a Gurudwara at Saket, New Delhi, allegedly to be an illegal and unauthorized construction, till the moratorium as envisaged by the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011 (for short Special Provisions Act), is in operation.

7. Ms. Janani, learned Senior counsel for the appellant primarily assails the impugned judgement solely on the basis that Special Provision Act, does not cover regular authorised colonies and has been promulgated only in respect of unauthorised colonies, jhuggi jhopri clusters and certain specific kinds of unauthorised constructions. According to her, since the subject property forms part and parcel of the authorised DDA colony, the learned single judge has misdirected himself into observing that the moratorium in clause (iv) of subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Special Provisions Act also covers the subject property. She emphasises that, once the Special Provisions Act, is not applicable to the authorised colonies, the question of moratorium protecting any kind of unauthorised or unsanctioned buildings, does not arise. In such circumstances, she stoutly contends that the impugned order to that extent needs to be set aside.

8. We have considered the arguments addressed by Ms. Janani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and have also closely examined the provisions of the Special Provisions Act. Since the emphasis is on as to whether the Special Provisions Act is or is not applicable upon the subject premises, it would be apposite to extract Clause (iv) of Sub Section 2 of Section 3 and the same is reproduced hereunder:-

3. Enforcement to be kept in abeyance.— (1)............................................. (2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) and notwithstanding any judgment, decree. or order of any court, status quo—

(i) as on the 1st day of January, 2006 in n respect of encroachment or unauthorised development;

(ii) in respect of unauthorised colonies, village abadi area

(including urban villages) and their extensions, which existed on the 31st day of March, 2002 and where construction took place even beyond that date and up to the 8th day of February, 2007, mentioned in sub-section (1);

(iii) in respect of special areas as per the Building Regulations for

(iv) in respect of all other areas within the National Capital

9. A plain reading of clause (iv) of Sub Section 2 of Section 3 does not leave any doubt or ambiguity as to the applicability of the provisions of Special Provisions Act on areas of NCT of Delhi other than those mentioned in subsections (i), (ii), (iii) of the Special Provisions Act.