Dda vs Avtar Singh
2003 Latest Caselaw 1375 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. Mr. O.P. Faizi, Advocate informs me that inadvertently on 5th November, 2003 he had mentioned to the Court that Avtar Singh has died. He submits that this information as regards the present accused is incorrect. He also submits that he is not appearing in this matter.

2. The matter when called out nobody put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, even though bailable warrants had been issued against the respondent as far back as on 13th March, 1991.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in Case No. 305/1987 whereby the learned Judge vide his judgment and order dated 23rd November, 1990, has acquitted the accused for an offence under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act (for short ''the Act'')..

4. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Metropolitan Magistrate are as under :

''DDA filed a complaint against accused Avtar Singh alleging that on 19.3.84 premises no.F-1, Kalkaji, New Delhi, was inspected by the DDA staff and it was found that accused was running M/s Babbar Crockery House in the premises in question. It is also alleged that according to provisions of Master Plan for Delhi, the premises in question can only be used for residential purpose and by using it for non-confirming purpose, accused has committed an officer U/s 14 r/w Sec. 29(2) of Delhi Development Act.''

5. Counsel for the DDA submits that the license granted by the MCD does not regularise the non-confirming use of premises in question, but is merely a trade license given under the Act. The user of the premises would nonetheless remain unauthorised for which the offence under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the DDA Act is made out.

6. I have gone through the order under challenge as also the material on record placed by counsel for the DDA, it appears to me that the respondent herein was running a shop under the name and style of M/s Babbar Crockery House in Premises No. F-1, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which is a residential area. The Master Plan which permits MCD to allow usuage of properties in built up areas on the basis of quick survey and on ad hoc basis till the Zonal Plan is prepared has granted a license to the respondent on 14th December, 1982 retrospectively. This license obviously does not cover the prospective period and certainly not the period when the Zonal Plan has come into operation but for the period for which the accused is prosecuted is covered by the license.

7. In this view of the matter, I uphold the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 23rd November, 1990 and dismiss Crl.A. 41/1991