Jeevan Jyoti Enterprises P.Ltd v. MCD & Ors.

VERSUS

MCD Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR,J.(oral)

1 Vide this common judgment, the aforenoted bunch of writ petitions shall he disposed 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 ofthese plots were sub-divided into several plots. The case ofthe petitioner is that their building plans were purportedly sanctioned by the Coiporation i.e. erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi(now represented by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). Their revised building plans wore also approved and sanctioned. Property tax had been deposited by 2017:DHC:8969 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 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, 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 2017:DHC:8969 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 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 ofthis 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 PlannedIndustrial Areas These industrialized areas were developed in the 7()'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 ofactivities in some ofthe areas and there have also been demandsfor using part of the plotsfor activities, which could be classified as commercial. There may also be a need to see whetherfurther densification is possible in terms ofcreating 2017:DHC:8969 f „'i,f' I ' 'i smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number of industries/units. Guidelinesfor redevelopment ofexisting industrial areas shall beframed within 2years by DDA in consultation with GNCTD and the local body. Tillsuch time, the existingsub 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 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."

1 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..lustice 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 Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri (as his Lordship then was) was of the view that since guidelines for redevelopment of existing 2017:DHC:8969:.,rr,f; 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 \1-v "f'' ' i' f 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:-."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 regularization ofsuch sub-divisions. Accordingly, the owners ofsub-divided plotsshall collectivelyprepare andsubmitthe Layoutplan to LocalBodyfor approval along Mnth 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 collectiyely 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. 1---

15 In view of formulation ol"these Regulations, learned counsel for 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. 16 y^These petitions are accordingly disposed ofwith liberty granted to 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 ofthree 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 ofone plot and to collate the documents it would be a cumbersome process for which sometime would be required. It is made clear that all co-owners ofone plot will make this collective application to the local body.

18 The applications of the petitioners will be considered in accordance with law and approval ofthe layout plan will be answered by the local body in accordance with law. The sanction ofthe building plan on the individual plot.s will,therealier be governed by MPD-2()21 development control norms. \n) p

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 ofthis order to the petitioners(which may be by registered A.D. post, courier or any mode ofaccepted sei-vice). Needless to state that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action ofthe respondent,they may take steps in accordance with law..This order is passed without prejudice to the respective Hghts and contentions ofthe parties. ^

20 Petitions disposed ofin the above terms. ^ ! (. INfcERMEETKAUR,J FEB'RUARY06,2017 A -tci W.P.{Q Nos. 13895-139]S/2006, N974-I4978/2006, I5I20/2006, I57/V2(m, 142-144/2007. 7,93-