Sijmermal Patawari Trust v. M.C.D. & Ors.

1 Vide this common judgment, the aforenoted bunch of writ petitions shall be di.sposed of.

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 2017:DHC:8782 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 betAveen 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 ofthe petitioners for conversion ofthe 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, certaiir demolitions were carried out by the respondent Corporation for alleged illegal mis-user. These writ petitions were accordingly filed.

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 ofan original plot cannot be granted any recognition by the Corporation. recommendations ofthe Monitoring Committee that the proposed action had been taken against the properties ofthe petitioners. The Single Judge ofthis Court had directed the matter to be listed along with the connected petition i.e. W.P.(C)No.4589/2003 Kalvan Samtha Matter to be listed before the Division Bench. Till that time,status quo was directed to be maintained.

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.

6 The Division Bench had disposed ofthis writ petition on 01.04.2008. Both Menibers 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 PlannedIndustrialAreas These industrialized areas M'ere developed in the 7()'s and over the years, have deteriorated considerable in terms ofphysical irifrastnicture and, in some cases deficiencies on this score have persisted in an overall sense. Besides, there have been changes in the nature ofactivities in some ofthe areas and there have also been demands for using part of the plots for 9^. St.""ji. l^v tliO °)1 smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number oj industries/units. Guidelinesfor redevelopment ofexisting industrial areas shall beframed within 2years by DDA in consultation with GNCTD and the local body. Tillsuch time, the existinssub divisions mav 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 theprocess ofredevelopment. This process ofupgradation 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."

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

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

9 The Court of ITon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri (as his Lordship then qC

11 Li. 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.

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.

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 soughttime for thesame purpose,

12 Today, this Court has been informed that the Delhi Development Authority vide its Motification dated 01.04.2011 has notified certain guidelines i.e. "Regulations and Guidelines for Redevelopment of Existing -I..:;.,.! ! i——..cr..' _ not in dispute thatthese Regulations would be applicable to the properties of the petitioners.

13 Clause 2.[3] ofthese Regulations is relevant.Itreads herein as under:- "Redevelopment ofExisting Planned Industrial Areas through sub-division ofplots. Master Plan-2021 also realizes that the existence ofsmaller plots by sub dividing the larger plots and has recommended to prepare guidelinesfor regidarization ofsuch sub-divisions. Accordingly, the owners ofsub-divided plots shall collectivelyprepare andsubmit the Layoutplan to LocalBodyfor approval along M>ith 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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. 2017:DHC:8782, n