Ujagar Singh vs Mcd & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 2316 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) 1968/2012

                                    Date of Decision: 10th April, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
UJAGAR SINGH                                    ..... Petitioners
                        Through:    Mr. J.M. Kalia, Adv.

                  versus

MCD & ORS                                     ..... Respondents

                        Through:    Ms. Biji Rajesh, Adv. for Mr.
                                    Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for MCD.
                                    Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. with
                                    Ms.Swati Gupta, Adv. for DDA

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

:     HIMA KOHLI, J(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

for directions to respondent No.1/MCD to facilitate the sanction of

the building plan in respect of property bearing No.C-27A, Greater

Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi, formerly part of Khasra No.944,

Village Bahapur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that due to the inter se

conflicting stands taken by respondent No.1/MCD and respondent

No.3/DDA, the building plans submitted by the petitioner to the

respondent No.1/MCD for sanction have remained pending on

account of repeated clarifications that are being sought by

respondent No.1/MCD from respondent No.3/DDA with regard to

incorporation of the subject plot in the layout plan of Greater

Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi. He draws the attention of this Court

to letter dated 17.01.2012 addressed by the respondent No.1/MCD

to the respondent No.3/DDA requesting the latter to take a decision

in this regard and convey the same to the MCD to enable it to

process the case of the petitioner.

3. Counsel for respondent No.3/DDA states that necessary

clarifications were conveyed by DDA to the predecessor-in-interest

of the petitioner as long back as on 29.12.2005 when in reply to an

RTI application filed by him, it was clarified that as per the approved

zonal development plan, the land use of the plot in question was

'residential' wherein residential building as well as facilities are

permitted conforming to the layout plan of the area. It is stated

that in view of the aforesaid clarification, the applicant was entitled

to approach the MCD with a request for construction of a residential

building on the subject plot, to which respondent No.3/DDA had no

objection. Therefore, as per DDA, the question of the MCD seeking

further clarifications in the matter does not arise.

4. Counsel for respondent No.1/MCD however states that as the

aforesaid clarification was given by the respondent No.3/DDA to the

predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and not directly to the

MCD, it could not act on the same.

5. The aforesaid submission appears to be fallacious in the light

of a letter dated 11.12.2002 addressed by the respondent

No.3/DDA to the Deputy Town Planner, MCD and enclosed as

Annexure P-2 to the writ petition wherein the Deputy Town Planner,

MCD was informed by DDA that as per the approved plan of the

area, the land use of the subject property is 'residential' and from

the planning point of view, the DDA would have no objection if the

plans for residential building submitted by the applicant are

considered by the MCD and MCD was informed that in case felt

necessary, it may also consider modification in the layout plan as

per the procedure being followed by it.

6. In the light of the above clarification issued by the DDA to

MCD as long back as in the year 2002, it is not understood as to

why any further clarification is required by the MCD in terms of its

letter dated 17.1.2012 issued to DDA to process the application of

the petitioner for sanction of the building plans on the subject plot.

7. In any event, in view of the submissions made by the counsel

for respondent No.3/DDA that DDA has no objection, if the

respondent No.1/MCD processes the application of the petitioner for

sanction of the building plan of the subject plot, the respondent

No.1/MCD is directed to process the case of the petitioner without

awaiting any further clarifications from the DDA. Needful shall be

done as per law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within

four weeks from today, under written intimation to the petitioner.

8. The petition is disposed of.

(HIMA KOHLI) Judge APRIL 10, 2012 'anb'/mk