Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
DEEPAK KAUR ..... Petitioner
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Sindwani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Bhagat, Mr. Tarun Sharma, Ms. Pragya Rathi, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, Advocate with Mr. Pramod Sharma, AE, NDMC.
Mr. Riju Raj S. Jamwal with Mr. Mohit Yadav, Advocates for Respondents 2 to 5.
APPL. ____________/2019 (to be numbered)
1. Petitioner impugns letter dated 05.04.2017, whereby, the Respondent No. 1 NDMC has required the petitioner to obtain the consent of other coowners for sanction of the building plan for a portion of the property bearing No.5, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi. Petitioner further impugns the rejection of the application for sanction on the said ground. 2019:DHC:4759
2. Petitioner claiming to be owner of a part of property bearing No.5, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi, made an application to Respondent No. 1 NDMC for sanction of a building plan for her portion.
3. Respondent NDMC inter alia required the petitioner to obtain ‘no objection’ certificate from the other recorded co-owners of the property.
4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is an on-going dispute with the other co-owners and there was no likelihood of them consenting to the sanction of the building plan. Further, it was contended that there was no requirement in law for the other co-owners to sign the application.
5. On an application filed by the co-owners seeking intervention, this Court, by order dated 25.07.2019, permitted the intervention and impleaded them as respondents.
6. With the efforts of the counsel for the parties, on 17.09.2019, a broad settlement was arrived at between the co-owners, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.
7. Accordingly, joint application has been filed by the petitioner and respondent 2 to 4 to place on record the settlement.
8. Original application has been filed in Court. Same is taken on record. Registry is directed to number the same.
9. In terms of the joint application, petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.[2] to 4, the owners of the subject property, state that they have resolved all their disputes with regard to the subject property and the subject matter of the present petition.
10. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, as recorded in the application, petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.77,90,000/- to respondent Nos.[2] to 4, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. A cheque bearing No.074269 drawn on ICICI Bank in the name of Daya Singh & Sons HUF has been handed over to the respondent Nos.[2] to
4.
11. Further, it is stated in the application that the parties have further confirmed the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 10.12.2011 executed between the petitioner and respondent Nos.[2] to 5. It is undertaken by the petitioner and respondent Nos.[2] to 4 that they shall not seek sanction of any FAR or raise construction in any area, in excess of their respective shares, as demarcated in the site plan, forming part of the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 10.12.2011.
12. Respondent Nos.[2] to 4 have confirmed and acknowledged the sanctions already obtained by the petitioner as enumerated in the application.
13. Petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 undertake that without demur and delay, they shall sign all applications, documents, affidavits, undertakings, etc. that may be required for processing of the building plan sanction by the respective parties for their respective portions. Petitioner and respondent Nos.[2] to 4 further undertake that they shall without demur sign and return the documents within 5 days of receipt thereof. They further undertake that they shall perform all acts as may be necessary and required by the other parties for sanction of the building plan for their respective portions. They further undertake that they shall abide by the terms and conditions as enumerated in the application.
14. It is agreed that the Petitioner shall furnish to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 the documents required to be signed by them for the purposes of sanction of Building Plans, within a period of four weeks. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall sign the said documents and return the same to the petitioners within 5 days.
15. It has further been agreed that Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall be entitled to present the cheque in the sum of Rs.77,90,000/-, handed over in Court today, for encashment only if the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) if petitioner fails to furnish to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 the documents referred to above for signing, within a period of four weeks from today;
(ii) in case the documents are furnished within a period of four weeks by the petitioner to the Respondents 2 to 4, until they duly sign and return the same to the petitioner.
16. Petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are present in Court in person. Respondent No.2 is also the attorney of the respondent No.3 and submits that he has been authorized to give an undertaking on behalf of the respondent No.3 as well.
17. Learned counsel appearing for the NDMC submits that the settlement inter se would not imply that they do not have to complete the formalities required by the NDMC.
18. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the settlement has been arrived at so that the requirements, as enumerated by the NDMC, can be fulfilled.
19. The undertakings given by the parties are accepted. They are bound down to the undertaking and also to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
20. It is clarified that the petitioner and respondent Nos.[2] to 4 would be required to complete the requisite formalities of NDMC for the purposes of sanction of building plan.
21. The petition and the pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.
22. Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SEPTEMBER 20, 2019 st