Sh. P.S. Taneja & Another vs Sh. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal And ...
2000 Latest Caselaw 900 Del

ORDER

KHAN, (J).

1.Appellants are residents of Kalindi Colony in Village Kilkori, Delhi and they are resisting Suit No. 191/98 filed by Respondents 1 to 3 for permanent injunction restraining MCD from acting on letter No. TP/9/9073/91 dated 8.7.91 and for considering their building plan. Trial court has passed an interim order in this suit dated 11.12.98 asking MCD not to act upon this letter and has allowed respondents (plaintiffs) to apply for sanction of the building plan.

2.Facts girving rise to this appeal are that Swantantra Co-operative Society acquired 20 acres of land in Village Kilkori. Its lay out plan was sanctioned by MCD vide Resolution No. 11 dated 1.10.1958 for 98 plots. Later Society submitted a revised lay out plan for carving out additional plots which was rejected. Meanwhile open space reserved for public services was handed over to the MCD on 31.5.79 and ever since stand vested in it.

3.It transpires that some plots out of the land otherwise earmarked for common utility purposes was sold to Respondents No. 1 to 3 on the condition that consideration amount would be returned to them if revised lay out plan was not sanctioned. These Respondents first filed a suit which was dismissed for non-prosecution. They have now filed Suit 191/98 and obtained an ad-interim injunction restraining MCD from acting upon letter No. TP/9/9073/91 which disposed off their representations on the subject matter and clarified that sites reserved for open spaces/approach road vested in MCD. Hence this appeal.

4.Appellants grievance is that trial court had as good as decreed Respondents suit by granting them whole relief at the interim stage ignoring that plots allotted to them vested with MCD and were earmarked for public utility services.

5.Apart from this it was pointed by L/C for appellants that the point in issue stood concluded by a judgment of Supreme Courtin Civil Appeal No. 4246/2000 titled Poonam Vs. MCD dated 27th July, 2000, upholding validity of impugned letter dated 8.7.91 issued by MCD. Therefore, once it is ruled by the apex court that no building activity could be allowed on plots not figuring in the sanctioned layout plan, impugned trial order becomes invalid and is to be vacated.

6.This appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed. Trial court order dated 11.12.98 is set aside and Respondents stay application dismissed.