Mehmood Zia And Anr. vs New Delhi Municipal Committee
2000 Latest Caselaw 1243 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of he parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. The petition has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the rejection of the plans by the respondent vide their letter dated 5.11.1992. The plans had been rejected by the respondent NDMC on the ground that the party had not submitted any proof of ownership of land or L & DO. Further that one of the trees on the plot was coming in the way of the proposed construction and for felling of which permission of the competent authority was required. Objections were raised with regard to betterment charges and the plans needing correction.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that while the other objections could be met by the petitioner, the one of prime importance was the petitioner's failure to furnish the proof of ownership of land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not the province of the NDMC to insist on proof of ownership as a pre-condition for sanction of the plans. He submits that this is not the requirement under Section 189 of the Punjab Municipal Act as was applicable to the plans under consideration. Section 189 Sub-section (3) provides as under :-"A committee shall by bye-law :-

(a) prescribed the manner in which notice of the intention to erect or re-erect a building shall be given to the committee;

(b) require that with every such notice shall be furnished a site plan of the land on which it is intended to erect or re-erect such building and a plan and specification of the building, the bye-law may require;

(c) where the building appears likely to be used as a factory, require the provision of adequate housing accommodation in connection therewith."

4. It is not disputed that building Bye-laws as framed are applicable. As per building Bye-laws 6.2.9., the application for building permit shall be accompanied by the ownership documents. The submission of the petitioner that the respondent cannot seek furnishing of the documents of ownership for processing the sanction of plans under the Punjab Municipal Act and the Bye-laws is misconceived. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that definition of 'owner' is very wide under the Act and it includes even a person receiving rent. In any event, it is not the petitioner's case that he is the landlord.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that he has complied with the requirement by furnishing sale deed in his favour. He further submits that property is not lease-hold. There is no lease in existence as the property has been free-hold from time immemorial.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner after some deliberation finally states that petitioner would apply to the L & DO for issuance of NOC on the basis that the petitioner's property is not a lease-hold property but a free-hold one. Let the petitioner apply to the L & DO within 2 weeks from today. L & DO will dispose of its application within 4 weeks.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that as soon as the petitioner applies for sanction of plans in accordance with the rules with the 'No Objection Certificate' from L & DO, the application shall be expeditiously dealt with.

Writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.