Hum Log Traders P.Ltd v. MCD & Ors.

1 W.P.(C)4492/2007& C.M. Nos.8403/2007&3576/2008 JAIN GENERAL Petitioner Through None, versus M.C.D.& ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Aiav Verma. Advocate for DDA. + W p,(C)4495/2007&C.M.Nos.8408/2007,8409/2007& 3570/2008 RE]JA}3LE PRINTING INK CO. Petitioner Through None versus Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate foi M(D. Mr.Aja> Verma..Advficate tor DDA. s W.P.(C)4498/2007&C.M.Nos.8414/2007.357S/2008. i794/2009& 7943/2010 MAfHOTRA ENTERPRISES Petilioner T'hroiigh None, versus 2017:DHC:8971 Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. + W.P.(C)6973/2007& C.M. No.13229/2007 SAEEDA KHATOON SIDDIQUI & ORS Petitioners Through Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv.

VERSUS

MCD Respondent Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INOERMEET KAUR,J.(oral)

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 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 Corporation i.e. erstwhile Municipal Corporation ofDelhi(now represented by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). Their revised building plans s 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 cairying 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 tiled.

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 recommendations ofthe Monitoring Committee that the proposed action had been taken against the properties ofthe petitioners, f'he 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 Beneh 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 Planned IndustrialAreas 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 ofactivities in some ofthe areas and there have also been demands for using part of the plots for ^fvAa 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 existinesub 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 needforoptimizing the use aroundthese areas through theprocess ofredevelopment. This process ofupgradation and redevelopment will need to be carried out in a planned manner, and in a public-private partnershipframework, 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 Ihe 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 Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri (as his Lordship then \)l^ industrial units are yet to be Ibrmulated by the policy makers and these eommercial 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.ludges, 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 the same purpose.