Ashulok Traders P. Ltd. v. M.C.D.

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:8970 i J recommendations ofthe Monitoring Committee thatthe proposed action had been taken againstthe properties ofthe petitioners. The Single.ludge ot 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 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] Blxisting Planned IndustrialAreas 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 plots for activities, which could be classified as commercial. There may also be a need to see. whetherfurther densfi.cation is po.ssible in terms ofcreatin<r 2017:DHC:8970 smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number oj ■industries/units. Guidelinesfor redevelopment of existing industrial areas shall beframedwithin 2 years 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 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 andMaintenance 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 iSharma 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 ot the view that since guidelines for redevelopment of existing 2017:DHC:8970 i i V2^ industrial units are yet to be formulated by the policy makers and these commercial establishments were operating tor a number of yeais, the occupiers should be given a I'espite and bad put a moiatorium 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 bad also sought time for the same purpose.

12 Today, this Court has been informed that the Delhi Development Authority vide its TMotilication 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 2017:DHC:8970 notin disputethattheseRegulations would be applicableto 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 Plon-2021 also realizes tho.[1] 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 plots shall collectivelyprepare andsubmit the Layoutpla.n to LocalBodyfor approval along Mhth the required mandatoiy 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:8970

15 In view offormulation oJ"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.

16 These petitions are accordingly disposed ofwith liberty gi'anted 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 si.!braission of the petitioners that in some cases there are several co-owners oJ'one plot and to collate the documents it would be a cumbersome process for which sometime would be required.

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 2017:DHC:8970

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 oi communication ofthis order to the petitioners(which may be by registered A..D. post,courier or any mode ofaccepted service). Needless to state that it the petitioners are aggrieved by the action ofthe respondent,they may take steps in accordance with law.. Ihis order is passed without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions ofthe parties. r "

20 Petitions disposed ofin the above terms. ■ i. IN]f>F;RMEET KAUR,J FEB'RUARY 06,2017. A- W.P.(C) Nos. 13S95-1391S/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 1571V2006, 142-144/2007,.193- 394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007. 569/2007, 57.1'2007, 622/2007, 63H- 640/2007. 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007. 1396/2007, 1647/2007 1649- l()5!/2007, 1716/2007. 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-448.1/2007, 4485-4488.72007. 4490-4492/2007, 4495.72007 &.4498/2007 P(!i;c 8 of18 2017:DHC:8970 $-8,9,10,1land 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)142/2007 JEEVAN JYOTI ENTERPRISES P.LTD Petitioner Through Mr.Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Kuljeet Rawal and Mr.Saurabh Malhotra,Advocates.

VERSUS

MCD & ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Verma, Sr.Standing Counserl with Ms.Diviani Khanna, Advocates. + W.P.(C)143/2007 INSPIRATION DEALERS P.LTD. Petitioner Through Mr.Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Kuljeet Rawal and Mr.Saurabh Malhotra,Advocates.

VERSUS

MCD & ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Verma, Sr.Standing Counserl with Ms.Diviani Khanna, Advocates. W.P.(C)144/2007 HUM LOG TRADERS P.LTD. Through Petitioner Mr.Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Kuljeet Rawal and Mr.Saurabh Malhotra,Advocates. WP(C)Nos.142to 144/2007 and WP(C)Nos.1650& 1651/2007 2017:DHC:8970

VERSUS

MCD & ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Verma, Sr.Standing Counserl with Ms.Diviani Khanna, Advocates. W.P.(C)1650/2007 SUMERMAL PATAWARI TRUST Petitioner Through Mr.Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Kuljeet Rawal and Mr.Saurabh Malhotra,Advocates.

VERSUS

MCD & ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Verma, Sr.Standing Counserl with Ms.Diviani Khanna, Advocates. W.P.(C)1651/2007 ASHULOK TRADERS P.LTD.& ORS. Petitioner Through Mr.Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Kuljeet Rawal and Mr.Saurabh Malhotra,Advocates.

VERSUS

MCD & ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Verma, Sr.Standing Counserl with Ms.Diviani Khanna, Advocates. WP(C)Nos.142to 144/2007 and WP(C)Nos.1650& 1651/2007 Page 2of 5 2017:DHC:8970 in CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR ORDER % 16.10.2017 C.M.No.16093/2017 in W.P.(C)142/2007 C.M.No.16097/2017 in W.P.(C)143/2007 C.M.No.16092/2017 in W.P.(C)144/2007 C.M.No.16992/2017 in W.P.(C)1650/2007 C.M.No.16094/2017 in W.P.(C)1651/2007 1 By way ofthese application, the petitioners seek a clarification in the order dated 06.02,2017.

2 Attention has been drawn to the aforenoted order. It is pointed out that the clarification sought for is called for in paras 14,16 and 17 of the said order. The petitioners have been granted permission to prepare and submit their layout plan to the Municipal Body collectively, it should be pemiitted as an individual application. It is pointed out that the clarification in the Master Plan effected on 13.5.2013 could not be brought to the notice ofthe Court at the time when this matter was argued. This clarification in the Master Plan (dated 13.5.2013) related to both amalgamation as also the sub division of the plots and the decision taken by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Body clearly evidences that such an application can be made singly as well. This is the clarification now required.

3 This stand is refuted by learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent points outthat it is in the rejoinder WP(C)Nos.142 to 144/2007 and WP(C)Nos.1650& 1651/2007 Page 3of 5 2017:DHC:8970 Wh- W 0^:*-■•. ' > * that for the first time the petitioners have come up with this pleading. The clarification application did not speak of the resolution of the Corporation now being relied upon. It is pointed out that the Regulation dated 01.4.2011 has to be strictly adhered to which conditions clearly provide for an application for sanction of plot has to be made jointly/collectively, it cannot be considered singly.

5 This Court is of the view that the petitioners make out a case for clarification. This is in view of the decision of the Standing Committee of the Corporation in terms of Resolution No.410 dated 03.3.2017 and which after a discussion had made the following decision which inter alia reads as under: "After discussion, thefollowingdecisions were taken:-

1. The plot qualifies for sub-divisions as per the notifications dt. 13-5-2013 and the clarification given by DDA vide letter dt. 3.6.2015 and 26.8.2016. The norms of theplot shall be asper the provisions containedin Table 7.[3] ofMPD-2021.

2. All the conditions given in the Regulation dt.1-4-2011 shall be adhered to.

3. The proposal required approval of Standing Committee for sub division ofPlot No.63, situatedatNajafgarhRoadIndustrial Area, Rama Marg, New Delhi -15

4. The applicant shall submit the legal documents in support of single/common/joint ownership for the above-referredplot at the time ofsanctioning ofthe bldg.plans. " WP(C)Nos.l42to 144/2007and WP(C)Nos.1650 & 1651/2007 2017:DHC:8970 fbi

6 Sub para 4 clearly states that the applicant shall submitthe legal documents in support ofsingle/common/joint ownership for the above referred plot at the time ofsanction ofthe building plans. The word "applicant" being in the singular form followed by submission ofthe legal documents by a single person clearly envisages that after the amendment in the master plan not only is a sub-division permitted but an application for sanction of the building plan can be made by a single applicant as well. This Resolution No.410 ofthe Corporation dated 03.3.2017 is an undisputed document. The decision (noted supra) was taken at Item No.104/2016 (dated 22.9.2016) and this is reflected in the LOSC Considerations of the aforenoted Resolution. The order for which clarification has been sought is dated 06.02.2017. The Resolution of the Corporation was on record at that time. Accordingly,this Court is ofthe view that the clarification sought for in paras 14,16 and 17 ofthe order is called for and the owners ofthe sub-divided plots may prepare and submit a layout plan to the local body even singly.