Delhi High Court
Residents Welfare Association Regd vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 13 February, 2025
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 110/2025, CM APPL.Nos. 8578-80/2025
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGD. ...Appellant
Through: Ms. S. Janani, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Sharika Rai, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta and Mr. Vansh
Luthra, Advocate for MCD.
Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing
Counsel for DDA with Mr. Bir
Inder Singh, Advocate for DDA.
% Date of Decision: 13th February, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGEMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.: (ORAL)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 8578/2025(DELAY 6 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL)
CM APPL. 8580/2025(DELAY 10 DAYS IN REFILING APPEAL)
3. Cause shown is sufficient.
4. Application is allowed and the delay in filing and refilling the
appeal is condoned.
5. Application stands disposed of.
6. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Clause X of
the Letters Patent impugning the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the
learned single judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 1215 of 2017 captioned
Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) and Ors. vs. Govt of NCT of
Delhi and Ors., whereby the learned single judge had dismissed the
prayer for directing demolition of a Gurudwara at Saket, New Delhi,
allegedly to be an illegal and unauthorized construction, till the
moratorium as envisaged by the National Capital Territory of Delhi
Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011 (for short Special
Provisions Act), is in operation.
7. Ms. Janani, learned Senior counsel for the appellant primarily
assails the impugned judgement solely on the basis that Special
Provision Act, does not cover regular authorised colonies and has been
promulgated only in respect of unauthorised colonies, jhuggi jhopri
clusters and certain specific kinds of unauthorised constructions.
According to her, since the subject property forms part and parcel of the
authorised DDA colony, the learned single judge has misdirected
himself into observing that the moratorium in clause (iv) of subsection 2
of Section 3 of the Special Provisions Act also covers the subject
property. She emphasises that, once the Special Provisions Act, is not
applicable to the authorised colonies, the question of moratorium
protecting any kind of unauthorised or unsanctioned buildings, does not
arise. In such circumstances, she stoutly contends that the impugned
order to that extent needs to be set aside.
8. We have considered the arguments addressed by Ms. Janani,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and have also closely
examined the provisions of the Special Provisions Act. Since the
emphasis is on as to whether the Special Provisions Act is or is not
applicable upon the subject premises, it would be apposite to extract
Clause (iv) of Sub Section 2 of Section 3 and the same is reproduced
hereunder:-
3. Enforcement to be kept in abeyance.--
(1) .............................................
(2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) and
notwithstanding any judgment, decree. or order of any court, status
quo--
(i) as on the 1st day of January, 2006 in n respect of encroachment
or unauthorised development;
(ii) in respect of unauthorised colonies, village abadi area
(including urban villages) and their extensions, which existed on
the 31st day of March, 2002 and where construction took place
even beyond that date and up to the 8th day of February, 2007,
mentioned in sub-section (1);
(iii) in respect of special areas as per the Building Regulations for
Special Area, Unauthorised Regularised Colonies and Village
Abadis, 2010; and
(iv) in respect of all other areas within the National Capital
Territory of Delhi as on the 8th day of February, 2007, shall be
maintained.
(emphasis supplied)
9. A plain reading of clause (iv) of Sub Section 2 of Section 3 does
not leave any doubt or ambiguity as to the applicability of the provisions
of Special Provisions Act on areas of NCT of Delhi other than those
mentioned in subsections (i), (ii), (iii) of the Special Provisions Act.
10. Thus it is clear that the learned Single Judge has neither
misdirected, nor misconstrued or misinterpreted the provisions of
Section 3 as quoted above.
11. In that view of the matter, the submissions based on the aforesaid
section are untenable, unfounded and unmerited. Thus, on that question
alone, we find no reason to interfere or interdict with the well reasoned
judgement of the learned single judge and the appeal is dismissed
however with no order as to costs.
12. However, the liberty granted by the learned single judge to the
appellant herein is retained.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
FEBRUARY 13, 2025/rl
