* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1968/2012
Date of Decision: 10th April, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
UJAGAR SINGH ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.M. Kalia, Adv.
versus
MCD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Biji Rajesh, Adv. for Mr.
Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for MCD.
Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. with
Ms.Swati Gupta, Adv. for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
: HIMA KOHLI, J(Oral)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondent No.1/MCD to facilitate the sanction of the building plan in respect of property bearing No.C-27A, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi, formerly part of Khasra No.944, Village Bahapur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that due to the inter se conflicting stands taken by respondent No.1/MCD and respondent No.3/DDA, the building plans submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.1/MCD for sanction have remained pending on account of repeated clarifications that are being sought by respondent No.1/MCD from respondent No.3/DDA with regard to incorporation of the subject plot in the layout plan of Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi. He draws the attention of this Court W.P.(C) No.1968/2012 Page 1 of 3 to letter dated 17.01.2012 addressed by the respondent No.1/MCD to the respondent No.3/DDA requesting the latter to take a decision in this regard and convey the same to the MCD to enable it to process the case of the petitioner.
3. Counsel for respondent No.3/DDA states that necessary clarifications were conveyed by DDA to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as long back as on 29.12.2005 when in reply to an RTI application filed by him, it was clarified that as per the approved zonal development plan, the land use of the plot in question was 'residential' wherein residential building as well as facilities are permitted conforming to the layout plan of the area. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid clarification, the applicant was entitled to approach the MCD with a request for construction of a residential building on the subject plot, to which respondent No.3/DDA had no objection. Therefore, as per DDA, the question of the MCD seeking further clarifications in the matter does not arise.
4. Counsel for respondent No.1/MCD however states that as the aforesaid clarification was given by the respondent No.3/DDA to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and not directly to the MCD, it could not act on the same.
5. The aforesaid submission appears to be fallacious in the light of a letter dated 11.12.2002 addressed by the respondent No.3/DDA to the Deputy Town Planner, MCD and enclosed as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition wherein the Deputy Town Planner, W.P.(C) No.1968/2012 Page 2 of 3 MCD was informed by DDA that as per the approved plan of the area, the land use of the subject property is 'residential' and from the planning point of view, the DDA would have no objection if the plans for residential building submitted by the applicant are considered by the MCD and MCD was informed that in case felt necessary, it may also consider modification in the layout plan as per the procedure being followed by it.
6. In the light of the above clarification issued by the DDA to MCD as long back as in the year 2002, it is not understood as to why any further clarification is required by the MCD in terms of its letter dated 17.1.2012 issued to DDA to process the application of the petitioner for sanction of the building plans on the subject plot.
7. In any event, in view of the submissions made by the counsel for respondent No.3/DDA that DDA has no objection, if the respondent No.1/MCD processes the application of the petitioner for sanction of the building plan of the subject plot, the respondent No.1/MCD is directed to process the case of the petitioner without awaiting any further clarifications from the DDA. Needful shall be done as per law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four weeks from today, under written intimation to the petitioner.
8. The petition is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI) Judge APRIL 10, 2012 'anb'/mk W.P.(C) No.1968/2012 Page 3 of 3