Dhani Ram Mittal v. M.C.D.

VERSUS

Through W.P.(C) 1716/2007 ' D.D.INDUSTRIES LTD llirough versus M.C.D & ORS Through Respondents Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. None. Petitioner Respondent Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. / / + + + — Ill W.P.(C) 2995/2007 & C.M. No.5607/2007 HARJBHAJAN BARHA & ANR Petitioners Tlirougli None.

VERSUS

Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 4128/2007 & C.M.Nos.7776/2007, 10826/2007 & 2814/2008, NAJAFGARIiROAD INDUSTRIES ASSO Petitioner Through Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv.

VERSUS

Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 4365/2007 & C.M. No.8184/2007 AMARNATH PASRICHA Petitioner

VERSUS

MCD &ORS.. Respondents Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 4482/2007 &C.M. Nos.8384/2007, 3571/2008 & 1793/2009 ARZOO INDUSTRIES Through versus M.C.D. &ORS. Through None. Petitioner Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel M'ith Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 4483/2007 & C.M. Nos.8386/2007 & 3572/2008 MEGHA ENTERPWSES Petitioner

VERSUS

I ^ 1)^ + W.P.(C) 4485/2007 & C.M. NOS.8389/2007 & 3579/2008 • R.K.CHEMICAL WORKS Petitioner

VERSUS

-I- W.P.(C) 4486/2007 & C.M. Nos.8391/2007 & 3570/2008 UNI PLAST IND. Petitioner

VERSUS

Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. • + V/.P.(C) 4487/2007 & C.M. Nos.8393/2007 & 3575/2008 KONICA INDUSTRIES Petitioner

VERSUS

•I- W.P.(C) 4488/2007 & C.M. Nos.8395/2007 & 3573/2008 ABBA INDUSTRIES ' Petitioner T'hrough None, versus M.C.D, & ORS. Respondents Tlirough Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. I- VV.P.(C) 4490/2007 & C.M. Nos.8399/2007 & 3577/2008 JUPITOR ELECTRICALS Petitioner V / 1A2>

VERSUS

Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 4491/2007 & C.M. Nos.8401/2007 & 3574/2008 JAIN STEEL Petitioner

VERSUS

M.C.D.& ORS. Respondents Through. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 4492/2007 & C.M. Nos.8403/2007 & 3576/2008 •IAIN GENERAL Petitioner

VERSUS

Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P,(C) 4495/2007 & C.M. Nos.8408/2007, 8409/2007 & 3570/2008 RELIABLE PRINTING INK CO. Petitioner

VERSUS

Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 4498/2007 & C.M. Nos.84]4/2007, 3578/2008, 1794/2009 & 7943/2010 MALHOTRA ENTERPRISES Petitioner Throueh None.

VERSUS

M.C.D.& ORS. Respondents -11^ Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chetan Gautani, Adv for MCD. + W.P.(C) 6973/2007 & C.M. No. 13229/2007 SAEEDA KHATOON SIDDIQUI & ORS Petitioners Through Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv.

VERSUS

MCD Respondent CQRAM: HON'BLE MS.

JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR liNDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral)

1 Vide this common judgment,' the aforenoted bunch of writ petitions shall be disposed of. 2 1he 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 ofthese plots were sub-divided into several plots. The case ofthe I petitioner is that their building plans were purportedly sanctioned by the Corporation i.e. erstwhile Municipal Corporation ofDelhi (now represented by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). Their revised building plans were also approved and sanctioned. Property tax had been deposited by j 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 theDDA in favour ofthe petitioners for conversion ofthe lease hold rights inthese 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, certain 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.

4 On 04.09.2006, the Court had noted that the respondent MCD shall carry out the direction of the Monitoring Committee and it was on the / I& recommendations ofthe Monitoring Committee that the proposed action had been taken against the properties ofthe petitioners. The Single Judge ot this Court had directed the matter to be Hsted along with the connected petition i.e. W.P. (C) No.4589/2003 Kalvan Sanstha Matter to be listed before the V Division Bench. Till that time, status quo was directed to be maintained. •tf •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 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;- "7.6.[1] Existing PlannedIndustrialAreas These industrialized areas were developed in the, 70's and over the years, have deteriorated considerable in terms ofphysical infrastructure and, in some cases deficiencies on this score have persisted in an overall sense. Besides, there have been changes in the nature ojactivities in some of the areas and there have also been demands for using part of the plots for activities, yvhich could be classified as commercial There may also be a need to see whether further densification is possible in terms of creating y 1'^ smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number of industries/units. Guidelines for redevelopment of existing industrial areas shall beframed M'ithin. 2years by DDA in consultation with GNCTD and the local body. Tillsuch time, the existins 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 isalso a needfor optimizing the use aroundthese areas through theprocess 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. "

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 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 v 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 sought time for the same purpose.

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 Xv 11'^ not in dispute thatthese Regulations would be applicable to theproperties of the petitioners.

13 Clause 2.[3] of these Regulations is relevant. It reads herein as under:- "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 guidelinesfor regularization ofsuch sub-divisions. Accordingly, the owners ofsub-divided plots shall collectivelyprepare and submitthe Layoutplan toLocalBodyfor approval along with the required mandatory documents as per BBL/to the satisfaction ofthe Local Body."

14 These Regulations thus recognize the existence of smaller plots b}' sub-division from the larger plots. The owners ofthesub-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 inthe Guidelines/Regulations. §0 ]5 In view of foiTnulation of these Regulations, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they would seek permission of this Court to witlidraw their petitions with liberty granted to them to approach the local body. They are permitted to do so.

16 These petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty grantedto 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 for 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.

17 It is made clear that all co-owners of one plot will make this collective application to the local body. 18 fhe applications of the petitioners will be considered in accordance with iav\' aad approval of the layout plan will be.answered by the local body in accordance with kiw. The sanction of the building plan on the individual plots will, thereafter be governed by MPD-202] development control norms. •/ /al

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 (which may be by registered A.D. post,.courier or any mode of accepted service). Needless to state that if the i:)eiitioners are aggiieved by the action of the respondent, they may take steps in accordance Vt'ith law. This order is passed without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties.

FEBRUARY 06, 2017 A INDERMEET KAUR,