Delhi High Court
Chattar Singh & Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 23 March, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 38/2010
CHATTAR SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Bhagwat Prasad Gupta,
Adv.
versus
MCD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 23.03.2010
The petitioners had applied for sanction of building plan for
construction on plot No.74, Taimoor Nagar, New Delhi on 20th
August, 2008. The respondent by the letter dated 26th August,
2008 called upon the petitioner to furnish documents and clarify
doubts. On 30th September, 2008, the petitioners replied to the
queries raised and furnished the documents to the respondent,
MCD. The respondent, MCD again on 10th November, 2008 asked
the petitioner to clarify doubts and submit documents, which
were replied and furnished by the petitioners. The petitioners by
W.P.(C) 38/2010 Page 1
their letter dated 21st November, 2008 asked the respondent,
MCD to examine their application for sanction of building plan.
2. The respondent, MCD after a gap of nearly four months
again wrote a letter dated 9th March, 2009, asking the petitioners
to comply with the letters dated 20th August, 2008 and 10th
November, 2008. The petitioners responded and informed the
respondent, MCD by their letter dated 9th April, 2009 that they
had already complied with and answered the letters dated 20th
August, 2008 and 10th November, 2008.
3. On 11th June, 2009, the respondent wrote to the petitioners
that they have received comments from the Central Town
Planning Office that plot of the petitioners abuts 24 meter road,
whereas at site there is another adjoining plot/vacant land in
existence. The letter states that this needed clarification and the
petitioners should comply with the objection/clarifications asked
for in the letters dated 20th August, 2008 and 9th March, 2008.
4. The petitioners sent the legal notice dated 8th July, 2009, to
the respondent MCD that they were delaying the matter and
W.P.(C) 38/2010 Page 2
unnecessarily harassing the petitioners. It was stated in the letter
dated 16th November, 2008 that copy of the Jamabandi was
furnished and the property is residential. The petitioners stated
that they had filed copy of the letter dated 23rd March, 2006,
issued by the SDM (Defence Colony) that the plot in question falls
is khasra No.837, which is Abadi Deh (Lal Dora). It was also stated
that the petitioners have already complied with the letters dated
26th August, 2008 and 10th November, 2008.
5. The respondent, MCD by their letter dated 10th May, 2009
informed the petitioners that a complaint against sanctioning
building plan was received and thereafter the matter was sent to
the office of the SDM (Defence Colony) for clarification regarding
ownership. It appears that one Mr. Mukesh Kumar had made a
complaint to the respondent and accordingly the matter was
referred to the SDM for comments in respect of ownership.
6. The matter has remained hanging and pending with the
respondent since 20th August, 2008 when application for sanction
of building plan was filed. The petitioners have approached this
W.P.(C) 38/2010 Page 3
Court by way of the present writ petition for direction to the
respondent MCD to act in accordance with law and to sanction
building plan as per the proposed plan submitted on 20th August,
2008 and re-submitted on 29th September, 2009.
7. The respondent, MCD in their counter affidavit have stated
that two reports dated 5th November, 2009 and 23rd December,
2009 have been received from the office of the SDM (Defence
Colony). In the letter dated 5th November, 2009 it is stated that
the Shizra does not show plots of individual occupants in Abadi
Deh (Lal Dora) separately. This is well known and cannot be a
ground to deny sanction of building plan. The said letter further
states that the plot No.74, i.e. the plot in question, measures 495
sq. yards and was in possession of Mr. Chhattar Singh and his
brothers at the time of visit and house tax receipt is in the name
of the petitioner's father Mr. Bhima. The letter dated 23rd
December, 2009 states that there a civil suit is pending with
regard to a plot on the south side of the property in question. The
letter states that the south side of the property is bounded by a
W.P.(C) 38/2010 Page 4
boundary wall on its south and east sides. It is a contention of the
petitioner that he is not asking for sanction of building plan in
respect of south side or the disputed plot but only in respect of
495 sq. yards of land i.e. property No.74. This plot is not disputed.
8. The aforesaid two letters of the SDM, do not in any manner
show and state that the petitioners are not the owners of the plot
in question and they cannot apply and ask for sanction of building
plan. In the present case, the petitioners, who are owners of land
in Abadi Deh (Lal Dora) have asked for sanction of building plan.
In most cases the owners of land in Lal Dora land do not ask for
sanction of building plan but carry out construction. The
petitioners, who want to abide by law, are unfortunately being
unnecessarily harassed. The application of the petitioners has
remained pending since August, 2008, though, there is no dispute
about the ownership of the plot No.74 measuring 495 sq. yards.
Dispute with regard to the adjacent plot cannot be a ground to
refuse sanction of building plan of another plot
9. Counsel for the petitioner states that after objections were
W.P.(C) 38/2010 Page 5
raised by the respondent MCD, the building plan was re-submitted
on 29th September, 2009 and the disputed strip of land was clearly
excluded.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed
with a direction to the respondent, MCD to consider the
application filed by the petitioners for sanction of building plan
submitted on 20th August, 2008 and re-submitted on 29th
September, 2009, within a period of one month from today. The
petitioner will visit office of the concerned Assistant Engineer (AE)
on 31st March, 2010 at 2.30 P.M. along with relevant papers and
documents. These relevant papers and documents will be
examined by the AE on the said date itself. In case there is any
deficiency, the petitioners or their authorized representative will
be informed in writing on the said date. No costs.
Dasti to the counsel for the petitioner.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 23, 2010
NA
W.P.(C) 38/2010 Page 6
