Delhi High Court
Hardev Dohli vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 15 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 IAD Delhi 601, 77 (1999) DLT 777, 1999 (48) DRJ 546, (1999) 121 PLR 77
Author: K Ramamoorthy
Bench: D Gupta, K Ramamoorthy
ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) Call for the records of the respondents and be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and direction setting aside and quashing the letter dated 28.9.1993 and be pleased to order and direct the respondents to consider and sanction the revised building plans submitted by the petitioner;
b) Further the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to raise the construc tion as per the revised sanctioned plans i.e. basement with 3/5 storeys as has been permitted by the respondents themselves in respect of other buildings in the M/Block Market complex of Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi or in the alternative.
c) Order and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to raise the same construction as has been raised by other builders as detailed in Annexure IX, and/or in the alternative the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order and direct the respondents to take action against all other buildings and to bring the buildings to the condition as per the respective sanctioned plan or the ap proximate permissible area of construction in accordance with the bye laws as existing.
2. The fact that the petitioner is the owner of a plot in M Block, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi, is not in dispute. The petitioner claims that he can put up construction of 5 floors with one basement.
3. On the other hand the case of the M.C.D. is that that is not permissible in that area. As per the Master Plan only two floors with the basement are allowed.
4. The petitioner put forth a case that the M.C.D. had permitted other constructions in the locality with more than five storeys with basement and therefore, the MCD had acted in a discriminatory fashion and therefore, according to the petitioner he should also be permitted to have five storeys with the basement. This court keeping in view the situation, directed the MCD to ascertain the details of construction made in the locality and verify if any violation had been made. The MCD had verified the same and given the list of construction in the locality where the owners had put up constructions in violation of the building laws. It is stated by the M.C.D that action in according with law had been taken against those persons who had violated the Building Rules. It is submitted on behalf of the M.C.D that the fact that other have acted contrary to law would not clothe the petitioner with the right to put up construction in violation of law.
5. The matter does not require any elaborate discussion. The petitioner can put up construction only in accordance with the Building Rules and he cannot claim any right and proceed to put up basement and five storeys building in Flat No. M/17, Greater Kailash, New Delhi.
6. It has to be noticed that M.C.D. had undertaken to take action against the persons who had violated the building rules. As a matter of fact one association called Greater Kailash II (Market) Welfare Association had imp leaded itself as a party in the proceedings. In the light of the stand taken by the MCD that it would act in accordance with law, it is not necessary to issue any further directions to the MCD except to take on record the statement made on behalf of the M.C.D. The petitioner in our view has not made out any case for issuance of a writ.
Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
