Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs M/S Inspriration Dealers Pvt Ltd & ... on 19 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19th February, 2019
+ LPA 37/2018 & CM. Nos. 3759/2018, 3760/2018, 3761/2018 and
48781/2018
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant
versus
M/S INSPRIRATION DEALERS PVT LTD &
ORS ..... Respondents
AND
+ LPA 38/2018 & CM. Nos. 3843/2018, 3844/2018 and 3845/2018
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant
versus
ASHULOK TRADERS PVT LTD & ORS ..... Respondents
AND
+ LPA 39/2018 & CM. Nos. 3846/2018, 3847/2018 and 3848/2018
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant
versus
M/S JEEVAN JYOTI ENTERPRIESE PVT LTD
& ORS ..... Respondents
AND
+ LPA 40/2018 & CM. Nos. 3855/2018, 3856/2018, 3857/2018,
49752/2018 and 50126/2018
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant
versus
M/S SUMERMAL PATWARIY TRUST & ORS ..... Respondents
AND
+ LPA 41/2018 & CM. No. 3858/2018, 3859/2018 and 3860/2018
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant
versus
LPA 37/2018 & connected matters Page 1 of 10
HUM LOG TRADERS PVT LTD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Sr. Standing Counsel
with Mr. Anupam Sharma &
Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advs. for DDA
Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. with
Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv.
Mr. Bhanu Gupta, Adv. for GNCTD
(item No.33)
Mr. Sumit Jidani, Adv. for R-2 (item
No.35)
Mr. Vipul Pankaj Sanghi, Adv. for R-2
(item No.31)
Ms. Neha Pandey, Adv. for Ms.
Prabhsahay Kaur, Adv. for GNCTD
(item Nos. 32 & 34)
Mr. Ajjay Aroraa and Mr. Kapil Dutta,
Advs. for NDMC
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and
Mr. Raghvendra Pandey, Advs. for R2
(item No.35)
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. These five appeals have been filed by the Delhi Development
Authority (DDA), challenging the order dated October 16, 2017, passed
by the learned Single Judge in applications filed by the respondents
herein, seeking clarification of order dated February 6, 2017. Suffice it
to state, that the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein were
disposed of by the learned Single Judge on February 06, 2017 by stating
as under:-
16. These petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty
granted to the petitioners to permit the co-owners of sub-
divided plots to collectively prepare and submit their layout
plan to North Delhi Municipal Corporation for approval.
This would be along with all the mandatory documents
which would be to the satisfaction of the local body. A
period of three months is granted for the said purpose. This
is in view of the submission of the petitioners that in some
cases there are several co-owners of one plot and to collate
the documents it would be a cumbersome process for which
sometime would be required.
17. It is made clear that all co-owners of one plot will make
this collective application to the local body.
18. The applications of the petitioners will be considered in
accordance with law and approval of the layout plan will be
answered by the local body in accordance with law. The
sanction of the building plan on the individual plots will,
thereafter be governed by MPD-2021 development control
norms.
19 After an order has been passed by the local body, no
coercive action shall be taken against the properties of the
petitioners till the next three months and this period of three
months be counted from the date of communication of this
order to the petitioners (which may be by registered A.D.
post, courier or any mode of accepted service). Needless to
state that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the
respondent, they may take steps in accordance with law.
This order is passed without prejudice to the respective
rights and contentions of the parties."
2. On an application filed by the respondents herein, the learned
Single Judge has, in para 6 held as under:-
"6. Sub para 4 clearly states that the applicant shall
submit the legal documents in support of
single/common/joint ownership for the above referred plot
at the time of sanction of the building plans. The word
"applicant" being in the singular form followed by
submission of the legal documents by a single person
clearly envisages that after the amendment in the master
plan not only is a sub-division permitted but an application
for sanction of the building plan can be made by a single
applicant as well. This Resolution No.410 of the
Corporation dated 03.3.2017 is an undisputed document.
The decision (noted supra) was taken at Item No.104/2016
(dated 22.9.2016) and this is reflected in the LOSC
Considerations of the aforenoted Resolution. The order for
which clarification has been sought is dated 06.02.2017.
The Resolution of the Corporation was on record at that
time. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the
clarification sought for in paras 14,16 and 17 of the order is
called for and the owners of the sub-divided plots may
prepare and submit a layout plan to the local body even
singly."
3. It is the submission of Mr. Ajay Verma, learned Senior
Standing Counsel appearing for the DDA that DDA has no
grievance by the initial order passed by the learned Single Judge
dated February 6, 2017. According to him, on an application
seeking clarification, the learned Single Judge has modified the
order to the extent that the Court has permitted the respondents
herein/ co-owners of the sub-divided plots to prepare and submit a
lay out plan, to the local body even singly. According to him, this
direction is at variance with the earlier directions given by the
learned Single Judge in her order dated February 6, 2017.
According to him, the order dated October 16, 2017 supersedes the
gravamen of the order dated February 6, 2017. He states that, there
is no material available before the learned Single Judge to modify
the order in the manner she has done. According to him, the
Regulation dated April 01, 2011, which inter-alia stipulates that the
owners of sub divided plots shall collectively prepare and submit a
layout plan to local body for approval along with required
mandatory documents as per BBL to the satisfaction of the local
body is still in vogue. According to Mr. Verma, the DDA had
issued letter dated August 26, 2016 clarifying the aspect that MPD-
2021 is a policy document, which only lays down the planning
parameter and does not address the ownership related issues. The
ownership of any plot i.e single, joint or through any inter-alia
agreement shall be up to the satisfaction of the local body / MCD.
According to Mr. Verma, the reliance placed by the respondents /
owners on the notification dated May 13, 2013 is totally
misconceived. It only added certain notes below table 7.3 of MPD-
2021 after Sl. No. VII and in particular the said notification merely
recognize that sub division or amalgamation of similar industrial
plots will be allowed without dispensing with the requirement of
submission of a collective lay out plan.
4. It is his submission that the Standing Committee vide
Resolution dated March 03, 2017 could not have amended or varied
requirement of Regulation dated April 01, 2011. He states that
when a large plot of land is sub-divided into the numerous parts, it
would have to be developed holistically by submission of a
collective layout plan by all sub-divided plot owners failing which
the purpose of redevelopment of industrial plot would be defeated.
5. Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents has heavily relied upon notification dated May 13, 2013
to contend that the application for clarification was filed only
because of the fact that the notification dated May 13, 2013 could
not be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge at the time
of hearing of the petition. He states, in terms of the said
notification, a note has been added below table 7.3, after Sl. No.VII,
which permitted sub-division of larger industrial plot or
amalgamation of smaller industrial plot in existing areas as well as
approved schemes / layouts / building plans on the said industrial
plots. He states that even as per the letter of the DDA dated January
27, 2015, it is clear that in view of the above provision, sub-division
and amalgamation of individual industrial plot, without insisting on
collective participation in the redevelopment of the sub-divided
industrial plot, irrespective of size, is allowed. He also relied upon
the Resolution of the Standing Committee, dated February 08, 2017
/ February 21, 2017, which dealt with the issue of amalgamation of
industrial plot 69/4A and 69/5A, out of plot no. 69 whereby
permission was granted and recommendation given, after
considering appellant's letter dated August 26, 2016 on the basis of
which the appellant had opposed the respondent's application for
clarification before the learned Single Judge. According to him, the
said resolution in para 13, allowed the amalgamation on individual /
single basis.
6. It is his submission that DDA has been part of all the
meetings of the Standing Committee as well as that of Layout
Committee and the representative of the DDA, having endorsed the
minutes and taken a specific stand in the meeting, now cannot be
allowed to allege to the contrary and oppose the decision taken in
the meetings of the Standing Committee.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only
issue for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge could
have, in an application seeking clarification, modified her order in
the writ petition. The answer has to be in the negative. Mr. Verma
is justified in relying upon Clause 2.3 of the said Regulation, which
reads as under:-
"2.3 Redevelopment of Existing Planned Industrial
Areas through sub-division of plots
Master Plan-2021 also realizes that the existence of smaller
plots by subdividing the larger plots and has recommended
to prepare guidelines for regularization of such sub-
divisions. Accordingly, the owners of sub-divided plots
shall collectively prepare and submit the Layout plan to
Local Body for approval along with the required mandatory
documents as per BBL/to the satisfaction of the Local Body.
After approval of the layout plan by the local body, the
sanction of the byilding plan on individual plot shall be
governed by MPD-2011 development control norms given in
the Table 7.3."
8. The said Clause of the Regulation is very clear that the
owners of the sub-divided plots shall collectively prepare and
submit the layout plan to local body for its approval. It is after the
approval of the layout plan by the local body, that the sanction of
the building plan on individual plot shall be governed by MPD-
2021.
9. Reliance placed by Mr. Rawal on the notification dated May
13, 2013 more specifically Note (xii) at serial No. 15 thereof, at
page 87 of the paper book, also does not help the case of the
respondents inasmuch as the same inter-alia stipulates "sub-division
of larger industrial plot or amalgamation of smaller industrial plots
will be allowed in existing areas as well as approved schemes /
layouts / building plans on these industrial plots". The said
stipulation does not say that such layout plan shall be submitted
singly.
10. Even the reliance placed by Mr. Rawal on the decision taken
by the Standing Committee, which reads as under is misconceived,
inasmuch as, the decision at Sl. No. (2) stipulates that all the
conditions given in the regulation dated April 01, 2011 shall be
adhered to. That apart, decision at Sl. No.(4) also stipulates that the
applicant shall submit the legal documents in support of single /
common / joint ownership for the above referred plot at the time of
sanctioning of the building plans. Suffice it to state, there is no
reference to a layout plan. In fact, Mr. Verma is justified in placing
reliance on the letter dated August 26, 2016 (which is a letter
subsequent to letter dated January 27, 2015) of the DDA.
"After discussion, the following decisions were taken:-
"1. The plot qualifies for amalgamation as per the
notification dated 13-05-2013 and the clarification given by
DDA vide letter dt. 19-2-2015 & 26-08-2016. The norms of
the plot shall be as per the provisions contained in Table 7.3
of MPD-2021.
2. All the conditions given in the regulation dt. 1-4-
2011 shall be adhered to.
3. The proposal requires approval of the Standing
Committee for amalgamation of Plot Nos. 69/4A and 69/5A
situated at Najafgarh Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi.
4. The applicant shall submit the legal documents in
support of single / common / joint ownership for the above
referred plot at the time of sanctioning of the bldg. plans."
11. Moreover, the issue can be seen from another angle,
inasmuch as Section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,
1957 on which reliance was placed by Mr. Verma, inter-alia casts a
duty on the owner to apply for sanction of the layout plan. In this
case, when the owners are more than one, surely a layout plan need
to be submitted by the co-owners collectively to the local body.
The direction of the learned Single Judge in her order dated October
16, 2017 was clearly untenable. The same is liable to be set aside.
Ordered accordingly. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid
extent.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
FEBRURAY 19, 2018/ak
