Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs M/S. Drn Investments & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 2413 Del

*         HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+         LPA No. 349 of 2003

                                   Judgment reserved on: April 20, 2010

%                                  Judgment delivered on: May 05, 2010

     Municipal Corporation of Delhi
     Through its Commissioner
     Town Hall
     Chandni Chowk
     Delhi.                                    ...Appellant
                    Through: Ms.Madhu Tewatia with Ms.Sidhi
                               Arora, Advs.

                     Versus

1.   M/s. DRN Investments & Agriculture Pvt. Ltd.
     Having its Registered office at
     Block-L, Connaught Circus
     New Delhi-110001.
     Through its Principal Officer
     Shri J.S. Grover

2.   Delhi Development Authority
     Through its Vice Chairman
     INA Vikas Sadan
     New Delhi.

3.   Government of NCT
     Through its Chief Secretary
     Secretariat, I.P Estate
     New Delh-110001.                                 ...Respondents

Through: Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv.

Coram:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not necessary

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Not necessary

MADAN B. LOKUR, ACJ

The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 25th February,

2003 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWP No. 7748/1999.

2. The writ petition filed by the Respondent was allowed by the

learned Single Judge relying upon M/s. Holistic Farms Pvt. Ltd. v.

MCD and others, 2003 (1) AD Del 491. Since an appeal preferred by

the MCD has been allowed by us today in LPA No. 268/2003, this

appeal must also be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the

impugned judgment and order dated 25th February, 2003 is set aside.

3. We may note one significant difference between this appeal

and the case of M/s Holistic Farms. In this case, the building plans of

the Respondent were rejected by the Corporation on 11th November,

1999 well before the notifications dated 7 th June, 2000 and the letter

dated 8th June, 2000 were issued. This actually places the Respondent in

a worse position than M/s Holistic Farms but we need not go any further

in this regard.

4. It may be noted that an issue has been raised by the

Corporation that the plot of the Respondent was situated in an urban

area and not in a rural area. It is not necessary for us to go into that

issue at all in view of our decision on merits. We, therefore, leave this

issue open for a decision at an appropriate stage, if the need arises.

5. No other submission was made before us.

6. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order

dated 25th February, 2003 in CWP No. 7748/1999 is set aside. No costs.

                                           (MADAN B. LOKUR)
                                           ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE



MAY 05, 2010                               (MUKTA GUPTA)
kapil                                      JUDGE