Harvir Giri vs Delhi Development Authority
1991 Latest Caselaw 282 Del

JUDGMENT

S.G. Jain, J.

(1) Facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was found using residential building bearing No. 1/15, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, for non- conforming use, i.e. for running an educational institution known as Rama Bal Academy in violation of Zonal Development Plan and the Master Plan of Delhi.

(2) On the basis of the evidence on record, both the Courts below found the petitioner guilty of an offence punishable under Section 29(2) read with Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and as such convicted him under said Section and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of ninety days.

(3) Aggrieved, this revision petitioner has been filed. Shri B.J. Nayyar, learned counsel for the petitioner, only stressed the point that Satish Sharma (Public Witness 1) on the basis of whose report proceedings were started against the petitioner, admitted in his cross-examination that the petitioner was residing in the building in question at the time of his inspection, but be bad not stated this fact in his report. According to the learned counsel, the Courts below have not taken into consideration this admitted residential use of the building in question by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the school in question has been in existence even prior to coming into force of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and that as per the office order No. 504 dated 24.11.1975, such type of use of a residential building is permissible.

(4) The record shows that the petitioner is running educational institution in these premises. The original use of this building is for residential purpose. No doubt, it has come in the cross-examination of Public Witness l Satish Sharma that the petitioner was residing in the upper storey of the building, but this fact is also admitted that Rama Bal Academy was being run there on regular basis. It is not the case of the petitioner that use of that building was commercial. His only plea is that as per the officer order No. 504 dated 24.11.75, this type of violation is condonable. The moment it is found that a building has been pat to a non-conforming use in violation of the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan, an offence punishable under Section 29(2) read with Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act stands proved. The findings of both the Courts below in this regard suffer from no illegality or infirmity.

(5) The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that using a portion of this residential building for teaching work by the petitioner is permissible as per the office order dated 24.11.1975, does not help in the present circumstances of the case. If he wants to make use of the office order issued by the Land & Development Officer, Ministry of works and Housing, Nirman Bhawan on 24 11.1975, he should apply for getting this misuse condoned in terms of this office order. As far as violation of Section 29(2) read with section 14 of Delhi Development Act is concerned, it stands proved and I find no illegality or infirmity,in the order of the trial court in this respect.

(6) On the point of sentence also, a lenient view has been taken as only a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 has been imposed. There is no ground for interference in this case and hence this revision petition is dismissed.