Ashulok Traders P. Ltd. & Ors v. M.C.D. & Ors

ORDER %

16.10.2017 C.M. No.16093/2017 in W.P.(C) 142/2007 C.M. No.16097/2017 in W.P.(C) 143/2007 C.M. No.16092/2017 in W.P.(C) 144/2007 C.M. No.16992/2017 in W.P.(C) 1650/2007 C.M. No.16094/2017 in W.P.(C) 1651/2007 By way of these application, the petitioners seek a clarification in the order dated 06.02,2017.

Attention has been drawn to the aforenoted order. It is pointed out that the clarification sought for is called for in paras 14,16 and 17 of the said order. The petitioners have been granted permission to prepare and submit their layout plan to the Municipal Body collectively, it should be pemiitted as an individual application. It is pointed out that the clarification in the Master Plan effected on

13.5.2013 could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time when this matter was argued. This clarification in the Master Plan (dated 13.5.2013) related to both amalgamation as also the sub division of the plots and the decision taken by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Body clearly evidences that such an application can be made singly as well. This is the clarification now required. This stand is refuted by learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that it is in the rejoinder WP(C) Nos.142 to 144 /2007 and WP(C) Nos.1650 & 1651/2007 Wh-W 0^ :*-■•. ' > * that for the first time the petitioners have come up with this pleading. The clarification application did not speak of the resolution of the Corporation now being relied upon. It is pointed out that the Regulation dated 01.4.2011 has to be strictly adhered to which conditions clearly provide for an application for sanction of plot has to be made jointly/collectively, it cannot be considered singly. Arguments have been heard. This Court is of the view that the petitioners make out a case for clarification. This is in view of the decision of the Standing Committee of the Corporation in terms of Resolution No.410 dated

03.3.2017 and which after a discussion had made the following decision which inter alia reads as under: "After discussion, the following decisions were taken:-

¶1The plot qualifies for sub-divisions as per the notifications dt. 13-5-2013 and the clarification given by DDA vide letter dt.

3.6.2015 and 26.8.2016. The norms of the plot shall be as per the provisions contained in Table 7.3 ofMPD-2021.

¶2All the conditions given in the Regulation dt. 1-4-2011 shall be adhered to.

¶3The proposal required approval of Standing Committee for sub division of Plot No.63, situated at Najafgarh Road Industrial Area, Rama Marg, New Delhi -15

¶4The applicant shall submit the legal documents in support of single/common/joint ownership for the above-referred plot at the time ofsanctioning of the bldg. plans. " WP(C)Nos.l42to 144/2007and WP(C)Nos. 1650 & 1651/2007 fbi 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. Application disposed of in the above tjbrms. INDERMEET KAUR, J OCTOBER 16, 2017 ndn WP(C) Nos. 142 to 144 /2007 and WP(C) Nos. 1650 & 1651 /2007

$- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date ofJuciginenf: 06.02.2017 + W.P.(C) 1651/2007 & C.M. No.3036/2007 ASHULOK TRADERS P. LTD. & ORS. Petitioners Mr. Kuljeet Rawal. Adv. M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.AJay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. COR AM; HON'Bl.E MS. .lUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral) 1 or orders, see tiles of W.P. (C) No. 13895/2006/ INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRU ARY 06, 2017 A C ro>>V> Mo ^ ^ ]ti)r * 3N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment: 06.02.2017 + W.P.(C) No.13895-918/2006 &C.M.NOS.] 0894/2006, 13430/2006 & I 13431/2006 ANIL DP/WAN & OTHERS Petitioners None, MUNICIPAL CORP OF DELHI & ANR Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MOD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. •I W.P.(C) 14974-978/2006 ^ DINESH KUMAR &ORS. Petitioners None, ^ 1 hroLigh Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate tx3r MOD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. i W.P.(C) 15120./2006 & C.M. No. 12066/2006 HARISHCHANDER SETHI Phrough Mr.Manish Sriva.stava and Mr, A.shok Kumar Sha.rrna, Advocates. versLi.s 1 hroiigh Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MOD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 1.671 7/2005 & C.M. No.l.''691/fQOo MiNAKSHlTRIVRDl _ ' through Mr.Manish Srivastava and Mr. Ashok K uinar Sharma. Advocates. MCD&ANR , , H.espondenl.5 . ni-ough Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate lor MCD. h'Ir./Ajay Verma, Advo'Sato (or DDA, 'l-./'-O'; Nos. I3S'JS-l3<JIS/.Vm. mv, —7™ - -h/'Jitil7 4l'2S'7fjn7 </?/:-•n/ii'i- " ' ' ' l(\7!/.Uji'7. !'/!•V'idny «''-'«vvwn /'".t?"' / of !H H . j ; ■••• J I W.P.(C) 142/2007 &.C.M. No.256/2007 J EE VAN JYOTl ENTERPRISES P.LTD > Through Mr. Maneesh Goyal, Adv. MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 143/2007 & C.M. No.258/2007 INSPIRATION DEALERS P.LTD. Ihrough Mr. Maneesh Goyal, Adv. i'"1CD&0RS. ^ Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.A.jay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 144/2007 & C.M. No.260/2007 HI JM LOG TRADERS P.l.TD. Mr. Maneesh Goyal, Adv. 1 hrough Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, .Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 393,/20()7 & C.iVi. No.713/2007 ANILAGGARWaL None. ■ versus Li.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa. .Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDa •i W.P.(C) 394/2007 & C.M. No.71 .V2007 kA,nNDER GOEl. None, versu.s ivI.C.D. & ORS. ^ ^ Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Venna. Advocate for .DDA. 'KAO.) .VV«. ISnv5.^918/2006, 14978-14978/2006. 15120/2006, 15/17/2/106. i4^.!44P0(,y m .^94/2007. 42l.422.m07. 496-499/2007, 517/2007. UO/2007. 569/2007, 573/2007^ 622m0^ '6/8 'nvmr .wtiHaj/sim. «»,/.«»,? j, 2 of 18 |r(3 (■ W.P.(C) 421/2007 & C.M. No.755/2007 RAJNI NASSA None, VICD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. -I" W.P.(C) 422/2007 & C.M. No.757/2007 ASHWINIICAPOOR None, MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 496/2007 & C.M. No.897/2007 SANJIV KUMAR JAIN ■ Through None, MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verrna, Advocate f-br DD.A. •I- VV,P.(C') 497./2007 & C.M. No.899/2007 VTNOD KUMAR ShiARMA . , Through None, MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. MT.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. -I W.P.(C) 498/2007 & C.M. No.905/2b07 RA.] & SONS P. LU3. ■ Through None, M.C.D. Sc ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. AVm-. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-149 78/2006, 15120/2006. 15717/2006. 142-144/7007 191- 394/2007. 421-422/2007. 496-499/2007. 517/2007. 540/2007. 569/2007. 573/2007, 622/2007 638- 640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1649- >651/2007, 1716/2007 299:,/7007, 4128/2007. ■1365/2007. 4482-4483/2007. 4485-4488/2007. 4490-4492/7007 4495P007 4498/2007 ' ' " ' I Iifl'-' 3 i>t 18 + W.P.(C) 499/2007 & C.M. No.907/2007 RAKESI-I GULATI None, M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DBA. + W.P.(C) 517/2007 & CM. No.953/2007 SUMIT RATHOR.& ORS. Petitioners None, M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MOD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DBA. + W.P.(C) 5