Rajinder Goel v. M.C.D.

1 Vide this common judgment, the aforenoted bunch of writ petitions shall be disposed of,

2 The petitioners before this Court are all property holders ofplots at Rama Road, Najafgarh Road hidustrial 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 of the petitioner is that their building plans were purportedly sanctioned by die Corporation i.e. erstwhile Municipal Corporation of I3elhi (now represented by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). Their revised building plans were also approved and sanctioned. Property tax had been deposited by 2017:DHC:8784 • I ) M i. 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), thp plots had been sub-divided y 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 of the petitioners for conversion of the 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, 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 of an original plot cannot be granted • any recognition by the Corporation..

4 On 04.09.2006, the Court had noted that the respondent MCD shall \; recommendations of the Monitoring Committee that the proposed action had •• been taken against the properties of the petitioners. The Single Judge of this Court had directed the matter to be listed along with the connected petition \ i.e. W.P. (C) No.4589/2003 Kalvan Sanstha 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 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 Planned Industrial Areas These industrialized areas we.re developed in the 70's and over the years, have deteriorated considerable in terms of physical infrastructure and, in some cases 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 classified as commercial. There may also be a. V I' \ smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number of industries/units. Guidelines for redevelopment of existing industrial areas shall beframed within 2 years by DDA in consultation with GNCTD and the local body. Till such time, the existing 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. Thisprocess of iipgradation 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 betterm.ent and subsequent m.aintenance through suitable Operation and Maintenance arrangements. " v„ 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 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 y 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 timefor the same purpose.

12 Today, this Court has been informed that the Delhi Development Authority vide its Mptification 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 V IS/ not in dispute that these Regulations would be applicable to the properties of the petitioners.

13 Clause 2.[3] of these Regulations is relevant. It reads herein as under:- "Redevelopment ofExisting Planned Industrial Areas through suh-division ofplots. Master Plan-2021 also realizes that the existence of smaller plots by suhdividing the larger plots and has recommended to prepare guidelines for regularization ofsuch sub-divisions. Accordingly, the OMmers ofsub-divided plots shallcollectivelyprepare andsubmit the Layoutplan to Local Bodyfor approval along M>ith the required mandatory documents as per BBL/to the satisfaction oftheLocal 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 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 in the Guidelines/Regulations. \ / \ '•''I •: I ! i' -r

15 In view of fonmilation of these Regulations, learned counsel tor the petitioners submits that they would seek permission of this Court to withdraw their petitions with liberty granted to them to approach the local body. They are permitted to do so.