M, Block Welfare Society Greater ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1993 Latest Caselaw 161 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) This writ petition was filed by a society styled as 'M' Block Welfare Society, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi. The principal allegation was that unauthorised construction was going on at plot bearing No. M-33, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi, not only in contravention of sanctioned plans but for a purpose which was not residential. The petitioners sought a writ or other appropriate order or direction to the respondents numbering eight to perform their statutory duties and other statutory obligations under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the Delhi Development Act and the Unified Building Bye-laws, 1983, as applicable to Delhi.

(2) We issued notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued and at the same time directed that no construction in violation of the sanctioned building plans shall be carried on by respondents 6 and 7. At that time, it appears, the petitioners were not aware as to who were the persons carrying on the construction. During the pendency of the writ petition it came to light that it was respondent No. 8, who was thereafter imp leaded in the matter.

(3) Respondent M.C.D. has filed an affidavit and inspection of the site has also been made and report of the Zonal Commissioner brought on record. The stand of the M.C.D. is that the sanctioned building plans were meant for constructing a residential house and the construction which was being carried on was for commercial purposes. It was stated that there had been deviation of the sanctioned plans and that topography of the building had been changed with the intention of making the building commercial as there was no bed room, kitchen, latrine and bath room. It was also mentioned that provision of lift had been made without any sanction and certain other deviations have been made like no stairs have been constructed to the basement which shows that the stairs will be constructed later on in front of the building against the sanctioned plans. We do not think it is necessary to refer to that in detail. Mr. Jolly, learned counsel for the M.C.D. has stated that an affidavit has been filed by the 8th respondent slating that building will be constructed as per sanctioned plans and that he has also applied for rectification of the existing building plans. Construction of the building has since been stopped. Mr. Jolly says M.C.D. has already initiated action for unauthorised construction by the 8th respondent and that the property is located in the residential area and that the building will be allowed to use only for residential purposes. He says if there is any contravention of provisions of the D.M.C. Act or the building bye-laws action as per law will be taken against the builder or any other person infringing the provisions.

(4) Mr. Chandhiok, learned counsel for the 8th respondent, has also filed an affidavit stating that rectification plans had been submitted to the M.C.D. and, if approved, the building will be constructed only in conformity with the rectified plans and the building bye-laws.

(5) In this view of the matter, we do not think any further orders are required from this Court in this matter. We may refer to a Bench decision of this Court in Rohit Talwar and others v. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, Drj 1992 (24) (DB) 473, in this regard. This petition, therefore, stands disposed of.