Delhi High Court
Balbir Singh Chauhan vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 16 April, 2019
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 212/2018 & CM APPL. No. 49510/2018
Reserved on: 01st April, 2019
Date of decision: 16th April, 2019
BALBIR SINGH CHAUHAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Nikhil Singla, Adv.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Adv. for R1.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. and
Mr.Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Lalit Gupta and Mr. Siddharth
Arora, Advs. for R2 to R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
1. The appellant was the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 2194/2018 in which
he had challenged order dated 10.03.2017 made by North Delhi Municipal
Corporation (the 'Corporation') revalidating sanctioned building plan dated
02.03.1971 issued in favour of respondent No. 4/East India Hotels Limited
('EIH').
2. As per the appellant's own averments, he is a resident of Oberoi
Apartments situate at 2 Sham Nath Marg, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, New
LPA 212/2018 page 1 of 3
Delhi and his grievance is that by revalidating the sanctioned building plan,
the Corporation has permitted EIH to make further construction to the extent
of 29664 sq. feet in the subject property, which constructible area had earlier
been deleted but has now been restored in the originally sanctioned building
plan as issued to EIH.
3. The most material contentions raised by the appellant before the
single Judge, as recorded in impugned order dated 12.03.2018, are the
following:-
"Having heard the counsel for the parties, on a specific query to Mr.
Singla, as to whether any right of the petitioner has been effected (sic)
because of the impugned order and also whether the petitioner is
making a claim on the FAR of 29664 Sq. Ft. in his favour, his answer
was in the negative. On a further query whether the rights of the
petitioner to free passage, air and light has been effected, Mr. Singla
states that no such rights of the petitioner are being affected. Further
on a specific query whether the present petition has been filed in
public interest, his answer is also in the negative. If that be so, it is a
settled position of law that it is only a person whose rights have been
affected, can invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for appropriate relief. In other words, in the
absence of an enforceable right, the petition is not maintainable.
Surely the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned
communication dated March 10, 2017."
4. In our view the foregoing contentions, as decided by the single Judge,
are dispositive of the entire matter and no further consideration is required.
LPA 212/2018 page 2 of 3
5. In any event, by way of judgment dated 16.04.2019 rendered by this
court in LPA No. 501/2018 titled Oberoi Apartments Owners Association
(Regd.) vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., the revalidation of
sanctioned building plan dated 02.03.1971 granted by the Corporation in
favour of EIH, whereby constructible area of 29664 sq. feet has been
restored in the originally sanctioned building plan, has already been upheld
by this court. Accordingly, the essential dispute being sought to be raised
before this court in this appeal already stands concluded in favour of EIH.
6. Accordingly, nothing further survives in the matter. This appeal is
accordingly dismissed; however, without any order as to costs.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
(JUDGE)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(JUDGE)
APRIL 16, 2019/uj
LPA 212/2018 page 3 of 3
