Rajinder Goel v. M.C.D. & Ors

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral) Fororders,see filesofW.P. (C) No. 13895/^06. INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 06, 2017 A *• I-s- * 3N THE HIGH COURT OF DEi.H'I AT NEW DELHI Date ofJudgment: 06.02.2017 -I-W.P.(C)No.13(S95-918/2006& C.M. Nos.10894/2006,13430/2006& 13431/2006 ANIL DEWAN & OTHERS Petitioners • Through MUNICIPALCORP OF DELHI &ANR Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocatefor MCD. Mr.Ajay Vernia, Advocate for DDA. •I-VV.P.(C) 14974-978/2006 • DINESH KUMAR& ORS. Petitioners MCD &ANR .i... Respondents Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate Ibr MCD. Mi-.Ajay Verm a, Advocate for DDA. I W.P.(C) 15120/2006 & C.M. No. 12066/2006 HARISH CHANDER SETHI Ti'irough Mr.Manish Srivastava and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharnia, .Advocates. MCD &ANR • Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Aja)' Verma, Advocate for C'DA. W.P.{C) 15717/2(:)06 &. C.M. No. 12591/2006 MiNAKSm TRIVEDl Mx.Marsish Srivastava and. Me. Ashok K.uinar Snarma. Advo!;ai;es, MCD &ANR Mr.Ajay Arorfia,Advocate Ibr MCD. • • Mr.AjciY Verrna, Advocat::^for DDA, .T-./'.ff) ••VcAV. I3S')S-13918/21)00, l4<)7.'/..i4<>-'8/2(lt)6, !'SJ!7/2006. >42-l4.i/:.!007. JOJ. •a!-422/2{m, 'm,-4:)<)/20l!7, :)//^'2W7, 54{)/2Uir'. W)/2<m7. a?2/2!ui7. 622/2'loi 042/2007. 7S2-75'V30fr, l!-)!//007. )396/30(>7.'!6-l7.'2!k)7. !(h<; l6S//7fl<<7. i7IV20u7, ::9!iS/yiti!7, 412^/2007, 43r!)/2007. 44!-i7-44Si3/>00:-.4~ilL'!-'l^'H8/i'00,>,44<Jf}-i4'y-V/!0-' 449V700" .'i . " y !,i -.J I r - I-vv V/.P.(C) 142/2007 & C.M. No.256/2007 JEEVAN JYOTl ENTE'RPRISESP.LTD , Mr. ManeeshGoyal, Adv. MCD &ORS. ' Mr.AjayAroraa, Advocatefor MCD. [VIr.AJayVerma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 143/2007 & C.M. No.258/2007 INSPIRATIONDEALERSP.LTD. - Through Mr. M.aneeshGoyal, Adv. • versus MCD &ORS. • Mr.Ajay Aroraa,Advocatefor MCD. W.P.(C) 144/2007 & C.M,. No.260/2007 I4UM LOG TRADERS P.LTD. Mr..ManeeshGoyaL Adv. MC. 1,.^ &ORS. j • Through Mr.AjayAroraa, Advocatefor MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, .Advocate for DDA. •+• W.P.(C) 393/2007 & C.M,. No.713/2007 A-f^^i!1/AGCrARWA1... l-^etitioncr • versus M.C.D.&ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. H-W.P.(C) 394/2007 &.C.M.. No.71.5/2007 RAJIN DER GOEL • versu.':; •M.C.D. & ORS. • 'Unrough Mr.A.jayAroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. W.FM:) Nos. l3l!95~/S9IS/2m, 14974-!'1978/2006, 15120/2006, !S7!7/2V06.. i42-!44/my, .vW-394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496:4')9/2007, SI 7/2007, S40/2007, 569/20(17, 573/2007, 622/2007. 638-040/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/7.007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007,'!647/2007. 164'). 1651/2007, !7!r,/20il7. 2995/2007. 4128/2007. 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-,-1488/2007. 4490-44')V2007 44i)sn06-> & • • Pno,2on8 ( I' V ".r ••: + W.P.(C) 421/2007 & C.M. No.755/2007 I^IAJNINASSA ' , versus MCD & ORS. •Through Mr.Aja}'Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. + W.P.(C) 422/2007 &,C.M. No.757/2007 ASHWINI K.APOOR ^ Through MCD &ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. 1-W.P.(C) 496/2007 & C.M. No.897/2007 SANJIV KUMAR JAIN • Through ' versus MCD & ORS, Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mi'.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. I-W.P.(C) 497/2007 & C.M. No.899/2007 VTNOD KUMAR SHARMA • 'Petitioner , Through MCD &ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. M.r.Aiay Verma, Advocate for DDA. =1 W.P.(C) 498/2007 & C.M. No.905/2007 RA] & SONS P. LTD. • Through M.C.D. &ORS. , Mr.Ajay Aroraa,Advocatefor MCD. W.P.(C) AVw. 13S95.1391S/2006, 14974-1497(1/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006. 142-144/2007, 393-J94/2007, 421-422/2007. 496-499/2007. 517/2007. 540/2007, 569/2007. 573/2007, 622/2007, 6^1-640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 164% l65!/2007, 1716/2007. 2995/2007, ^/I2,V2007, 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007. 4490-4492r>()07 'i49-V>00-' & 4498/2007 ^ , 3 of /A .Ov + W.P.(C) 499/2007 & C.M. No.907/2007 RAKESHGULAtI .....Petitioner •Through None.' M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. . Mr.Aja}' Verraa, Advocate for DDA. -I-W.P.(C) 517/2007 &G..M.NO.953/2007 SUMIT RATHOR & ORS. Petitioners M.C.D. & ORS. ' • Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. .Mr.Ajay Vernia, Advocate for DDA. + W.P.(C) 540/2007 & C.M. No.1003/2007 RAJEEV KUKREJA Tlirough ^ versus MCD & ORS. ^ Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. Mr.Ajay Vernia, Advocate for DDA. + W.P.(C) 569/2007 & C.M:. No.1051/2007 KAILASH DEVI ...... Petitioner ' Tlirough MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. + W.P.(C) 573/2007 & C.M. No.1057/2007 SANTOSH KUMAR VERMA ' Through •versus MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Vernia, Advocate for DDA. IV.P.(C) iVos. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638-640/200 7, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007.

164.9-1651/2007. 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 A 4498/2007 lOo ';in;; ^ : v i:.! y ' ' i I r ; + W.P.(C) 622/2007 & C.M. No.1152/2007 GAGAN CHOPRA Througli MCD & ORS Tlirough Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. •h W.P.(C) 638/2007 •& C.M. No.l 171/2007 ANDND SWAROOP NAYYAR M,CD & ORS . . Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. -I-W.P.(C) 639/2007 & C.M. No.1173/2007 VIRENDER KUMAR MCD & ORS • Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. W.P.(C) 640/2.007& C.M. No.1175/2007 RAJESH KUMAR KHOSLA , versus MCD & ORS Respondent • Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, AdvocEitefor MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. . -I W.P.(C) 642/2007 & C.M. No.1180/2007 M/SBHn<CAM CHAN D BAID . versus . N4CD & ORS Respondent Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. M'.P.fCJ !\'os. 13895-1391(1/2006,. 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-394/2007, 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, 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007. 2995/2007. 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 4498/2007 Puv:e 5 of 18 + W.P.(C) 752/2007 & C.M. No. 1410/2007 BONANZO ENGG. & CHEMICALS P.LT • Through M.C.D. &ORS. Respondent Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. -I-W.P.(C) 753/2007 & C.M. No.1412/2007 NAVEEN JA.IN & ANR . Through • versus MCD & ORS. Respondent Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. J. W.P.(C) 754/2007 & C.M. No.1414/2007 •FAGDISH MALHOTRA & ANR ^'ersus MCID & ORS. _ • Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. WT\(C) 1191/2007&C.M. No.2117^007 Dl LIP SINGH GHOLCHA Petitionei- \'ei"sus M.C.D. & ORS. R.espondents T'hrough Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. W.P.(C) 1396/2007 & C.M. No.2556/2007 DHANI ram: MITTAL ' Tliroiish M.C.D, &ORS. • Respondent Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA, W.P.fC) /Vfts', 13S95-1391H/2(H)(>, 1497'!-1'1978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, .f.'/.v-394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 62:2/2007, 63li-640/2007. 642/2007, 752-754/2007. 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, \M9. {(,51/2007, J716/200''. 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/200', 4482-4483/2007. 4485-4488/2007, 4490-'i492/2007, 4^)95/7:007 A 4498/2007 )n-V i , •: + W.P.(C) 1647/2007& C.M. Nos.302-8/2007& 16429/2013 K.L.J.RESOURCESLTD. &ORS. Petitioners ; Through Mr. KuljeetRawal,Adv. M.C.D. &ORS. Mr.AjayAroraa.Advocatefor MCD. Mr.Ajay Verraa, Advocate for DDA. + W.P.(C) 1649/2007 & C.M. No.3032/2007 DEPENDABLECONSUMERGOODSP.lt Mr. KuljeetRawal, Adv. M.C.D. &ORS. Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. + W.P.(C) 16-50/2007& C.M. No.3034/2007 SQMERMALPATAWARITRUST ' Through Mr. KuljeetRavvaL Adv. M.C.D.&ORS. Mr.AjayAroraa, Advocatefor MCD. W.P.(C) 1651/2007 & C.M. No.3036/2007 ASHULOKTRADERSP. LTD. & ORS. Petitioners Mr. KuljeetRawal, Adv. M.C.D. &ORS. Mr.AjayAroraa, Advocatefor MCD. H W.P.(C) 1716/2007 D.D.INDUSTRIES LTD " M.C.D &ORS Respondent Mr.AjayAroraa, Advocatefor MCD. W<P.rQ iVos. 13895-I39im006, !497'f-14978/2006,15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007 W-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, 1649-1651/2007, 171b/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007. 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007. 4490-4492/2007,4495/2007 & 4498/2007 n •, r,o P/igp 7 of 18 V m + W.P.(C) 2995/2007 & C.M. No.5607/2007 I-TARBHA.TANBARHA &ANR Petitioners Througli Respondent Throiigli Mi-.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. + W.P.(C)4128/2007&'C.M.Nos.7776/2007,10826/2007&2814/2008 NAJAFGARHROAD INDUSTRIES'ASSO ThrouglT Ms. NandniSahni,Adv. " versus Respondent riirougli Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. Mr.Ajay Vernia, Advocate for DDA. + W.P.(C) 4365/2007 & C.M. No.8184/2007 AMARNATHPAS.R1.CHA •Through MCD &ORS. . Through Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. + W.P.(C)4482/2007& C.M. Nos.8384/2007,3571/2008& 1793/2009 ARZOO INDUSTRIES M.C.D. &ORS. ' Mr. Mukesh Gupta, StandingCounsel with Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for MCD. •I-W.P.(C) 4483/2007 & C.M. Nos.8386/2007 & 3572/2008 MEGHA ENTERPRISES ir.P.(C) i\os. 13895-13918/2006,U974-N97S/200(), 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-394/2007, 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, 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482^-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007. 4.495/2007 & Pa,c'8ofl8 M.C.D. & ORS. : Mr.AJayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocatefor DDA. + W.P.(C)4485/2007&C.M. NOS.8389/2007& 3579/2008 • R.K.CHEMICAL'WORICS V' ' M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.AjayAroraa, Advocate for MCD. + W.P.(C)4486/2007& C.M. Nos.8391/2007& 3570/2008 UNIPLASTIND; ; .versus M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. Mr.AjayVerma, A.dvocatefor DDA. .1. V,/.p.(C)4487/2007&C.M. Nos.8393/2007&3575/2008 KONICAINDUSTRIES M..C,D.&ORS. • Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. Mr.AjayVerma,Advocatefor DDA. W.P.(C}4488/2007&C.M. Nos.8395/2007&3573/2008 ABBA INDUSTRIES l?hrough. None M.C.D, &ORS. • Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatetor MCD. Mr.AjayVerniia,A.dvocatefor DDA. •F \N.?.(C)4490/2007&C.M. Nos.8399/2007&3577/2008 .flJTTTORELECTRICALS tf'.r.(C) i\ns. 13H95-I39IH/2006.14974-!15120/2006, 15717/2006, l'12-l-W2007, 3')3-394/20117. 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007. 517/2007, 540/2007. 509/2007, 573/2fU)7. (-,22/2007, •640/WP 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1649-16S!/2007, 1716/2007. 2995/2007. 4128/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007.4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492^2007.-4495/21)07 A p/fOi.* 9 of IS 44WJ0fr ^ •' • versus M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.AJayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. ^ + W.P.(C)4491/2007&C.M. Nos.8401/2007&3574/2008 y-JAIN STEEL - Through M.C.D.& ORS. ' .Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. 1-W.P.(C) 4492/2007 & C.M. Nos.8403/2007 & 3576/2008 JAIN GENERAL M.C.D. & ORS. • Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocatefor MC-D. •4 W.P,(C)4495/2007&C.M. Nos.8408/2007,8409/2007&3570/2008 S' KELIABLEPRINTINGINK CO. Tiirough . M.C.D. & ORS. ' Mr.AjayAroraa.Advocatefor MCD. / Mr.AjayVerma, Advocatefor DDA. -1 W.P.(C)4498/2007&C.M. Nos.8414/2007,357S/2008,1794/2009& 7943/2010 ivlALHOTRAENIERPRISES • M.C.D.&ORS. ; .....Respondents W.P.(Q Nos. I3895-I39/S/2U06, !4V74-i4'J7S/20l)6, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 14I-I4m007, J'J3-394/20117, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007. 517/2007, 540/2007, 509/2007. 573/200'^,, 622/2007, 63(i~ 640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, I647/?(W7, 1649-I65!/'20d7, 1716/2007. 2995/2007, 412^/2007. 4365/2007, 44H2-44H3/2007, 44SS-44Sm007, 4490-4492/2007,'4495/2007 44m20<)7 ' • hi!,'!''Oof 18 !% Mr. MukeshGupta, StandingCounsel with Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for MCD. Mr.AjayVerma,Advocatefor DDA. + W.P.(C)6973/2007&C.M. No.13229/2007 SAEEDA KHATOON SIDDIQUI & ORS Petitioners y Tlirough Ms. Nandni Sahni,Adv. MCD Respondent Tlirough Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. Mr.AjayVerma, AdvocateforDDA. CO RAM: HON'BIE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET I<AUR, J. (oral) Vide this common judgment,the aforenotedbunch of writ petitions shall be disposed of, The petitionersbefore this Court are all property holders of plots at Rama Road, Najafgarh Road hidustrial Area, New Delhi. There is no disputethatRama Roadin West Delhi was conceivedas an "industrialarea'' for extensiveindustrieswith large industrialplots. It is also not in dispute that each ofthese plots were sub-dividedinto severalplots. The case of the petitioneris that their building plans were purportedlysanctioned by die Corporationi.e. erstwhileMunicipalCorporationof I3elhi (now represented by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). Their revised buildingplans were also approved and sanctioned. Property tax had been deposited by IV.P.fC) /Vav. I3S95-I39I8/2006, I'I974-N97S/20(I6, 15120/2006. 15717/2006, }42-i44/2007, 393-394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 63S-640/2007, 642/2007,752-754/2007. 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649-I65I/2007. 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4I2S/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007. 4485-4488/2007. 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 4498/2007 ' rngc 11 oj !8 • I ) M i . them. Individual petitioners had purchased their individual plots from the erstwhile owners. Since these industrial plots were large in size (in some case being more than 10 acres and above), thp plots had been sub-divided y and individual registered sale deeds had been entered into betAveen the individual petitioners and the erstwhile owners. Property tax and house tax were also being paid by the petitioners. Conveyance deeds had also been executed by the DDA in favour of the petitioners for conversion of the lease hold rights in these properties into free-hold. The petitioners had carried out their respective constructions in their respective properties. Electricity connections were obtained. The petitioners were carrying on their commercial activities from the aforenoted industrial plots. In the year 2006, certain' demolitions were carried out by the respondent Corporation for • alleged illegal mis-user.. These writ petitions were accordingly filed. In the counter affidavit; the respondent Corporation had taken an objection that the policy of the Department does not permit them to sub divide a plot and the sub-divided status of an original plot cannot be granted • any recognition by the Corporation. . On 04.09.2006, the Court had noted that the respondent MCD shall carry out the direction of the Monitoring Committee and it was on the tV.P.(C) 'Nos. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-394/2007, 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-I65I/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & 4498/2007 \; recommendations of the Monitoring Committee that the proposed action had •• been taken against the properties of the petitioners. The Single Judge of this Court had directed the matter to be listed along with the connected petition \ i.e. W.P. (C) No.4589/2003Kalvan SansthaMatter to be listed before the •Division Bench. Till that time, status quo was directed to be maintained. The petitioners before the Division Bench had undertaken that all illegal deviations/constructions would be demolished by themselves voluntarily. This monitoring continued before the Division Bench. The Division Bench had disposed of this writ petition on 01.04.2008. Both Members of the Division Bench had returned different findings. Provisions . of Clause 7.6.1 of MPD-2021 was the subject matter of •discussion. Clause 7.6.1 reads herein as under:- "7.6.1 Existing Planned Industrial Areas These industrialized areas we.re developed in the 70's and over the years, have deteriorated considerable in terms of physical infrastructure and, in some cases deficiencies on this score have persisted in an overall sense. Besides, there have been changes in the nature of activities in some of the areas and there have, also been demands for using part of' the plots for activities, which could be classified as commercial. There may also be a. need to see whether further densification is possible in. terms of creating W.P.(Q Nos. 13895-13918/2006. N974-N<)78/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393- •394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638-640/2007, 642/2007, 752-751/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649-1651/2007, 1716./2007. 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365./2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007. 4495/2007 A 4498/200 7 P(,,^e 13 of 18 V I' \ smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number of industries/units. Guidelines for redevelopment of existing industrial areas shall beframed within 2 years by DDA in consultation with GNCTD and the local body. Till such time, the existing sub divisions may continue. There is, therefore, a need for modernization and up-gradation of the existing industrial areas with due regard to environmental considerations. Since most of the Industrial areas are located along the Mass Public .Transport Corridors, there is also a needfor optimizing the use around these areas through the process ofredevelopment. Thisprocess of iipgradation and redevelopment will need to be carried out in a planned manner, and' in a public-private partnership framework, in which the entrepreneurs contribute to the betterm.ent and subsequent m.aintenance through suitable Operation and Maintenance arrangements. " v" The moot question i.e. till what time "the existing sub-divisions may continue" was to be answered. The Court of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rekha Sharma held that sub divisions are permissible but was of the opinion that the petitioners were not entitled to a de-sealing of their units as the constructions raised by them were illegal and unauthorized. The Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri (as his Lordship then was) was of the view that since guidelines for redevelopment of existing W.P.(Q Nos. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-394/2007, 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, 164 7/2007, 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & 4498/2007 Page 14 of IS industrial units are yet to-be formulated by the policy makers-and these • commercial establishments were operating for a number of years, the . occupiers should be given a respite and had put a moratorium against any y coercive action; it was of the view that the properties of the petitioners should be protected and had accordingly granted a status quo to them accordingly; he had permitted the de-sealing of their properties subject to certain conditions. In view of these differentopinions given by. the two Judges, matter was referred to a third Judge. The matter has now come been marked to this Court, In the course of these hearings, , learned counsel for the respondent/DDA had taken time to appraise this Court about the Rules and Regulationswhich have been formulated after the promulgationof MPD-2021. The petitionershad also soughttimefor the same purpose. Today, this Court has been informed that the Delhi Development Authority vide its Mptification dated

01.04.2011 has notified certain guidelinesi.e. "Regulationsand Guidelinesfor Redevelopmentof Existing Planned IndustrialArea" (hereinafterreferred to as the Regulations). It is W.P.(C) Nos. !3S95-l3'JIS/2m, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2(107, 517/2007, -540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 63S-640/2007, 642/2007,752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007,1647/2007. 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007. 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 c« 4498/2007 ^ Pir-e is'oj 18 V IS/ not in dispute that these Regulations would be applicable to the properties of the petitioners. Clause 2.3 of these Regulations is relevant. It reads herein as under:- "Redevelopment of Existing Planned Industrial Areas through suh-division ofplots. Master Plan-2021 also realizes that the existence of smallerplots by suh-dividing the larger plots and has recommendedto prepare guidelinesfor regularizationofsuch sub-divisions. Accordingly,the OMmersofsub-divided plotsshallcollectivelyprepareandsubmitthe Layoutplan to LocalBodyfor approvalalong M>ith the requiredmandatorydocumentsas per BBL/to the satisfaction oftheLocal Body. " These Regulationsthus recognize the existence of smaller plots by sub-divisionfrom the largerplots. The owners of the sub-dividedplots have been directed to collectively prepare and submit a layout plan to the local body along with the required mandatory documents to the satisfaction of the local body. The local body in this case is the North Delhi Municipal Corporation. After the approval of layout plan by the local body, the sanction of the building plan on individual plots would be governed by MPD-2021 development control norms given in the Guidelines/Regulations. W.P.(C) Nos. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14'j78/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-394/2007, 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, 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007: 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & 449S/2007 Page 16of 18 \ / \ '•''I •: I ! i' -r In view of fonmilation of these Regulations, learned counsel tor the petitioners submits that they would seek permission of this Court to withdrawtheir petitionswith liberty granted to them to approach the local body. They are permitted to do so. These petitionsare accordinglydisposedof with libertygrantedto the petitioners to permit-the co-owners of sub-dividedplots to collectively prepare and submit their layout plan to North Delhi MunicipalCorporation for approval.This would be along with all the mandatorydocunientswhich 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 submissionot the petitionersthat in some cases there are several co-ownersoi one plot and to collate the documents it would be a cumbersome process for which sometime would be required. It is made clearthat all co-ownersof one plot will make this collective applicationto the local body. The applicationsof.the petitionerswill be consideredin accordance with law and approvalofthe layoutplan will be answeredby (he local body in accordancewith law. The sanctionof the buildingplan on the individual plots will,thereafterbe governedby IVIPD-2021developmentcontrolnorms. • W.P.(C) Nos. IjS9S-I39I8/.WUi'h l497'i-N97>i/200(), 15120/2006. 15717/2006, l'l2-I-H/2007, 393-394/2007. 421-422/2007. 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 63-^- 640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007. 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 412S/2007, 4365/2007, 44H2-44S3/2007, 44S5-44HS/2007, 4490-4492/2007.4495/2007 449S/2007 •Pngt; 17of iH \ \ \ r !;•> V 19 . After an order has been passed b}' the local body, no coej-civeaction 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 acceptedservice). .Needlessto 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 coritentions of the parties. ^ — Petitions, disposed of in the above terms. • • i . INfcERMEETKAUR,J FE13:RUARY 06,-2017 A' ' • • M'.P.(C) Nns. 13S95-J39IS/2006, I4<)74-N978/2006, I5I20/2006, I57IIQII06, 142-144/2007, :,93-394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007,. 622/2007, 63S-640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/200^ 1649-U51/20in, 1716/20/17. 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 44S2-44S3/2007, 44S5-44SH/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 44^)5/2007 & Psi<'0 IH .4*1911/2007 '

IN THE HIGH COURT % OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date ofJudgment: 06.02.20J 7 + W.P.(C) 394/2007 & C.M. No.715/2007 RAJINDER GOEL M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.AjayAroraa, Advocatefor MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR