J.R. Desai And Another vs Maharani Bagh Co-Operative ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 1236 Del

*                HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    LPA NOS.406/2008 AND 432/2008


1.   LPA No.406/2008
     J.R. Desai and another                .....Appellants
                     Through: Ms.Malvika Rajkotia with Mr.Ravi
                              Gupta, Ms.Arpita, Mr.Ramakant
                              Sharma, Ms.Jyoti Sharma and
                              Mr.Bandan Kumar, Advocates
                          Versus
     Maharani Bagh Co-op.
     Society and ors.                      ...Respondents
                       Through: Mr.A.N. Haskar and Mr.Rajiv
                                Nayar, Sr. Advocates with Mr.R.
                                Sudhinder, Advocate for
                                respondents No.1-2.
                                Mr.Rajiv Bansal with Mr.Rajan
                                Tyagi, Advocates for DDA.
                                Mr.Amit K. Paul, Advocate for
                                MCD.

                              AND

2.   LPA No.432/2008
     J.R. Desai and another                .....Appellants
                     Through: Ms.Malvika Rajkotia with Mr.Ravi
                              Gupta, Ms.Arpita, Mr.Ramakant
                              Sharma, Ms.Jyoti Sharma and
                              Mr.Bandan Kumar, Advocates
                          Versus
     Delhi Development Authority and ors. ...Respondents
                       Through: Mr.Ajay Verma, Adv. for DDA.
                                Mr.A.N. Haskar and Mr.Rajiv
                                Nayar, Sr. Advocates with Mr.R.
                                Sudhinder, Advocate for
                                respondent No.3.
                                Mr.Amit K. Paul, Advocate for
                                MCD.



LPA 406/2008 & 432/2008                                 page 1 of 5
 CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

1.Whether reporters of the local news papers be
  allowed to see the judgment?n
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?n
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?n

                                 ORDER

% 5.8.2008

CM No.10711/2008 in LPA No.406/2008 (exemption) CM No.10849/2008 in LPA No.432/2008 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

LPA No.406/2008 and CM No.10710/2008 (stay) LPA No.432/2008 and CM No.10850/2008 (condonation of delay)

1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties. We have also gone through the records with their

assistance. The appellants had filed two writ petitions against the

respondents, which were dismissed by the learned single Judge.

Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals.

2. The appellants are the residents of respondent - Maharani

Bagh Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as the

respondent society). They had filed the writ petitions challenging

the allotment of plot bearing number 1, Central Avenue, Maharani

Bagh, New Delhi measuring 961.5 sq. meters to the respondent

society for construction of a community hall. The sanction of

LPA 406/2008 & 432/2008 page 2 of 5 building plans is also challenged. The principal contention is that

the allotment of plot vide lease deed dated 4th July, 2001 is

contrary to the Master Plan of Delhi, 2001. It does not meet the

parameters with regard to plot size and other requirements

specified under the said Master Plan under the heading "Socio

Cultural Facilities". According to the learned counsel appearing

for the appellants, under the Master Plan of Delhi, 2001, the

"Community Room" is to be provided on the land with the

minimum area of 660 sq. meters with the population of 5000

while a "Community Hall with Library" is to be provided on the

land with the minimum area of 2000 sq. meters with the

population of 15000. According to him, in the present case,

neither of the two standards are met, since the land allotted by

the Delhi Development Authority for the purposes of "Community

Hall" is only 961.5 sq. meters.

3. We may mention that Sub Clause (4) of Clause 3 of the

Development Code of the Master Plan of Delhi, 2001 stipulates

that the layout plans already approved by the Authority or any

other local authority concerned in accordance with law shall be

deemed to have been approved under this Code. As per the

layout plan, plot No.B-II (now numbered as 1) is earmarked for

LPA 406/2008 & 432/2008 page 3 of 5 being used as office-cum-club. The effect of sub-clause (4) is that

a layout plan approved by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in

1966 earmarking plot No.B-II (now numbered as 1) for use as

office-cum-club shall be deemed to have been approved under

the Development Code of Master Plan of Delhi, 2001. Thus the

layout plan passed in 1966 is deemed to be fully in accord with

the the Development Code of the Master Plan of Delhi, 2001.

4. The construction of the community hall is almost

complete. The society has given an undertaking that the plot in

question will be used for activities permitted and allowed in a

building / plot meant for community hall only. In the

circumstances, the submission that the lease granted in favour of

the respondent society and consequential building permission is

in violation of the Master Plan of 2001 is liable to be rejected.

5. The other contention, which was raised before us, is that

there is no specific provision with regard to parking area for the

community hall. It was submitted that this is vital for the

peaceful enjoyment of the residence in the proximity of a

community hall in a residential area. The learned single Judge

has noted that the plan shows that the society has indicated and

marked equivalent car parking space for 20 cars. The Master Plan

LPA 406/2008 & 432/2008 page 4 of 5 requires provision for car parking space and no construction

should be allowed in the area marked for car parking. The

respondent society has given an undertaking to the Court that no

construction will be permitted on the parking area. As regards

the concern of the appellants that if cars are parked in a

haphazard manner, the learned single Judge has made it clear

that traffic police will look into this aspect and it will also be the

duty of the respondent society to ensure that cars are not parked

on the main road or the street outside the houses of the

appellants and others so as to cause inconvenience and problem

to residents.

6. Learned single Judge has considered in depth all the issues

raised in the petition and come to the conclusion that the

construction of community hall is not in violation of the rules. We

do not find any ground to interfere with the well-considered order

of the learned single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

S.MURALIDHAR, J August 05, 2008 "nm"

LPA 406/2008 & 432/2008                                      page 5 of 5