Ashwini Kapoor v. MCD & Ors.

3 In the counter a'ffidavit, the respondent Corporation had taken 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.. an

4 On 04.09.2006, the Court had noted that the respondent MCD shall caiiy out the direction of the Monitoring Committee and it was on the 2017:DHC:8781, v». V ‘uiiw * r t 11 «r»-' r.:fn !■ xecommendations of the Monitoring Committee that the proposed action had been taken against the properties of the petitioners. The Single.kidge of this had directed the matter to be listed along with the connected petition

(C) Nd.4589/2p03 Kalvan Sanstha Matter to be listed before the

Division Bench. Till that time, status quo was directed to be maintained. Court % i.e. W.P. 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.

6 The Division Bench had disposed of this vvrit 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:- "7.6.[1] Existing Planned Industrial Areas. These industrialized areas were developed in the 70 ’s and over the years, ■ have deteriorated considerable in. terms ofphysical infrastructure and, in some ca.ses 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 ckissified as commercial. There may also be a need to see.- whether further densification is possible in terms of creating 2017:DHC:8781 I ZP

IV. «<!f t<- -smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number of industries/units. Guidelinesfor redevelopment of existing industrial areas shall beframed within 2 years by DBA in consultation with GNCTD and the local body. Till such time, the existin£ sub divisions may continue. 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 ofredevelopment. % 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. ” The moot question i.e. till what time “the existing sub-divisions may % continue” was to be ainswered.

8 The Court of Hoirble 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.

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 r ’nrrnjijLilJiilJ.:.»r *; <14 r ■ industrial units are ye^t 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. 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.

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 MPD-

2021. The petitioners had also sought time for the same purpose. • V l'’oday, this Court has been informed that the Delhi Development Authority vide its Notification dated 01.04.2011 has notified certain guidelines i.e. “Regulatio and Guidelines for Redevelopment of Existing Planned Industrial Area” (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). It is ns v/1 --.[1] n t TI ' T u v ~11L[1] not in dispute that these Regulations would be applicable to the properties of the petitioners.

13 Clause 2.[3] ofthese Regulations is relevant. It reads herein as under:f “Redevelopment of Existing Planned Industrial Areas through sub-division ■ofplots. 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 ofsuch sub-divisions. Accordingly, the owners ofsub-divided plots shall collectively prepare and submit the Layoutplan to Local Bodyfor approval along Math the required mandatory documents as per BBL/to the satisfaction ofthe Local Body. ”

14 These Regulations thus recognize the existence of smaller plots by sub-division from the larger plots. The owners of the sub-divided plots h 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. % \ ave 1 *'' T TMr In view of formulation of these Regulations, learned counsel tor the petitioners submits that they would seek permission withdraw their petitions with liberty granted to them to approach the local body. They-are permitted to do so. of this Court to These petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to permif 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 This is in. view of the submission of the granted for the said.purpose. petitioners that in some cases there are several co-owners of one plot and to U • collate the documents it would be a cumbersome process for which sometime would be required. It is made clear that all co-owners of one plot will make this collective • application to the local body. 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 plots will, thereafter be governed by MPD-2021 development control noimis. c % I

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 (winch, 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 respectiye rights and contentions of the parties. I p \ f

20 Petitions disposed of in the above terras, i ■;. IN!>IvRM.JilET KAUR, J FEEfRIJARY 06,- 2017 A- I ! ' U, \ I i i I I l'l'.P.(C) Nos. 13S95-1391S/2006, N974-N978/2006, 15120/2006, I57n/2006, 142-!44/2007, 393- 394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, '517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007,. 622/2007, 63H- 640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191,2007. 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1649- 1651/2007, 1716/2007.' 2995/2007. 412S/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-448.1/2007, 44S5-44SS./2007. 4490-4492./2(;07. 4475.2007 &. Page 18 of!8 I ^ 44n/2()l)7 ! \