Ashwini Kapoor v. Mcd & Ors

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral) / For orders, see files of W.P.. (C) No. 13895/2006. INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 06, 2017 A cr /' wf. ^ n ?'■ ■ - i ■ i %- 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. 10894/2006, 13430/2006 & 13431/2006 ANIL DEWAN & OTHERS Through None, versus . MLNICIPAI. CORP Of DELHI & ANR Through Mr.A.ja.)'' Aroraa. Advocate for MOD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for D.DA. -I-Petitioners Respondents W.P.(C) 14974-978/2006 DINESH KUMAR & ORS. • versus •■I-Petitioners None. MOD & ANR ......Respondents Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MOD. V/.P.(C) 15120./2006 & C.M.No.12066/2006 HARISH OI-IANDER SETHI rhroLigh ....Petitioner Mr.Manish Srivastava and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sha.nna, Advocates. MOD & ANR ' Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MOD. Mr.Aja)' Verma, Advocate fo.r DDA. 'I'hrough t., W,P.(C) 1571 MiNAKSHl TRIVEDI "7 /'•>■ ! I -ck.006 C.M. No. 12.591 /20()6 ....Petitioner M.r.,M.anish Srivastava and. Mr. /-Vshok Kurnar Sbarma. Advocates. ffhrough t'ersLis MOT.) & ANR ..... Respondent.s M.r.Aia3' Aroraa, Adv.ocate l.nr MCD. . Through ust ----- - .4'J;h/2m!7. 412^.0.007, 4307/2007. .1432.44.7 OyiO-i6SJ/2oi'7. - 4493/2007 A Onu,: ! ig!3 '14113-44.33/200,>. 4490-1402/200? h ■■..9i\yV' sr ■vj W.P.(C) 142/2007 & C.M. No.256/2007 JEEVAN JYOTl.ENTE'RPRISES P.LTD , Through Mr. Maneesh Goyal, Adv. ' ■ versus -I-Fhrough ' Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for M'CD. Mr.AJay Verma, Advocate for DDA. MCD & ORS. I W.P.(C) 143/2007 & C.M. No.258/2007 INSPIRATION DEALERS P.LTD. Through Mr. Maneesh Goyal, Adv. I MCD & ORS. . Mr.Ajay Venna, Advocate for'DDA. . Through W.P.(C) 144/2007 & C.M,. No.260/2007 MUM LOG TRADERS P.I.TD. Through Mr. Maneesh Goyah Adv. r MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Verm a, .Advocate for DDA. I W.P.CO 393/2007 & C.M,. No.713/2007 ANIL AGGARWAI... . f ....Petitioner Through None, M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Aja,y Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Venna. Advocate for DDA. Th).-ough W.P.(C) 394/2007 & C,.M.. No.71.5/2007 RAJINDER GOEL ■T Tlirough None. M.C.D. & ORS. M.r.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Venna. Advocate Ibr DDA. ' Through iKf./O !31195-13918/2006, 14974-^1978/2006. 15120/2006. 15717/2006.. 142-144/200/. 393- .94/200., 421-422.72007, 496-499/2007. 51772007: 540/2007. 569/20o\ 573/2007. 62272007. 638-640/200;. 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1.191/2007. 1396/2007, ' 1647/2007, 2995/2007. 4128/2007. 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-,44S8/2007 1649. 1651/2007. 1716.72007. 4490-4492/2007. 4495.7200? ..t 2 of 18 , 'cif /• r) ■4) W.P.(C) 421/2007 & C.M. No.755/2007 RAJNI NASSA -f , Through None. ' versus Mr.Aja}/ Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Aja}' Verma, Advocate for DDA. MCD & ORS . W.P.(C) 422/2007' & C.M. No.757/2007 ASHWINI .IC4P00R -I- ■ Through None, MCD & ORS.. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. W.P.(C) 496/2007 & C.M. No.897/2007 SANJIV KUMAR JAIN •i- ■ Through None, ■versus MCD & ORS. Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate -for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verm a,-Advocate for DD.A. W.P.(C) 497,/2007 & C.M.. No.899/2007 VTNOD KUMAR Si-IARMA Through None, .versus 'Petitioner P MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for .DDA. 'UrroLigh W.P.(C) 498/2007 & C.M. No.905/2007 RA] & SONS P. LTD. -I- • T'hrough None. M.C.D. & ORS. . .... Respondents Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. ii/Sv l^'■>7^-l'l<J78/2U06. /SJ20/2006, 15717/2006. 142-UW2007. 193- .,94 2007. 421-422/2007. 49P499/2007. 517/2007. 540/2007. 569/2007. 57372007, 622/2007. 613-6 0/2007, 642/2007, /52-7>4/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1649-1651/2007 1716/7007 Nnn'lO- '>'>712-4483/2007. 4485-4488/2007. 4490-4492/2007. 4495/2007 Pi,H4 3 ; fn Vr -J W.P.(C) 499/2007 & C.M. No.907/2007 RAKESI-I GULATI -I-Through None, • ....Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. M.C.D. & ORS. , t W.P.(C) 517/2007 & CM. No.953/2007 SUMIT RAtl-10R.& ORS. -I- ....Petitioners Through None, M.C.D. & ORS. Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MOD. W.P.(C) 540/2007 & C.M. No. 1003/2007 RAJEEV KUKRE.1A ^ Through . None, -f- .. Petitioner MCD & ORS. ■ W.P.(C) 569/2007 & C.M/ No.1051/2007 KAILASHDEVI/ -f :... Petitioner •Through None, MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MOD. W.P.(C) 573/2007 & C.M. No.1057/2007 . SANTOSPI KUMAR VERMA ■Through None. -I-MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate ibr DDA, IKP.(C) iVo.K. 13895-/3918/2006, 14074-/4978/2006, /S/20/2006, /57/7/2006, /42-/44/2007, 393-394/2007. 42/-4n/2007. 496-499/2007, 5/7/2007. 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007. 622/2007 6^- 640/2007,^ 642/2007, 7S2-754/2/m7, //9//2007, /396/2007 /647/2007. /64.9- /65//2007, /7/6/2007, 2995/2007, 4/28/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 A ^498/2007 ^Page 4 of IS >1 "h]V' M '• I ' • ...,f W.P.(C) 622/2007 & C.IV!.. No. 1152/2007 GAGAN CHOPRA H-Through None, Mr.AJay Aroraa, Advocate tor MC,D. MCD & ORS . W.P.(C) 638/2007 & C.M. No. 1171/2007 ANDND SWAROOP NAYYAR Through None, M.CD & ORS - Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MOD. W-W.P.(C) 639/2007 & C.M. No. 1173/2007 VIRENDER KUMAR -I-Through None, MCD & ORS A V W.P.(C) 640/2007 & C.M. No. 1175/2007 RA.1ESH KUMAR KHOSLA Til rough ■ versus "I' None. t: MCD & ORS ....Respondent . Through W.P.(C) 642/2007 & C.M. No. 1180/2007 h4/S BI-IIICAM CHAND 13 AID Through None. ' versus MCD & ORS ........ Respondent Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate tor MCD. l-l'.P.fQ Nos. i3H95-13918/2006, N97'l-M978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, N2-N4/200'' 193- .194/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007. 540/2007. 569/2007. 573/2007, 622/2007. O.IH-640/2007. 642/2007. 752-754/2007. 1191/2007. 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1649-1651/2007: 1716/2007.

299.-)/200/. 4128/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-448.1/2007. 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007 4493/2007 A' " A . Pitge 5 of 18 ■•?ii !,!• f : .f "T r ' W.P.(C) 152120^1 & C.M. No. 1410/2007 BONANZG ENGG. & CHEMICALS P.LT ■ Through None, -I- ....Respondent Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. M.C.D. &ORS. W.P.(C) 753/2007 & C.M. No.1412/2007 NAVEEN .TAIN & ANR . Through None, -I-MCD & ORS. ....Respondent Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate foi-DDA. W.P.(C) 754/2007 & C.M. No. 1414/2007 ■lAGDISH MALHOTRA & ANR , 'Through N'ersus None. MCD & ORS. Through ' Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. % W.P.(C) 1191/2007 & C.M. No.2117/2007 DTLTP SINGH GHOLCHA ' ■f Through None, versus • M.C.D. & ORS. ......Respondents ■Through W.P.(C) 1396,/2007 & C.M:. No .2556/2007 DHANI R' AM MTETA L -!■ 'Tiii-ovisli None. M.C.D. &ORS. • ■ ....Respondent Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate-for MCD. W'.MrC; Nos. l38'J5-139lli/200(), I497'l-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 39.1 394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, " 640/mi7. (>42/2007, 752-754/2007. 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, i649-2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483.72007. 4485-4488/2007 ' 573/2007, <>22/2007, 638-1651/2007,. 1716/2007. 4490-4492/2007. 4495/2007 & P<i,(/e 6 (i f h'i --j' ji:r - ■ .. -If' •.' 'ii-I'i, V/.P.(C) 1647/2007 & C.M. Nos.302-8/2007 & 16429/2013 K.L..T.RESOURCES LTD. & ORS. Through Mr. Kuljeet Ravval, Adv. H-Petitioners .....Respondents Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. M.C.D. & ORS. W.P.(C) 1649/2007 & C.M. No.3032/2007 DEPENDABLE CONSUMER GOODS P.LT Through Mr. Kuljeet Ravval, Adv. ■ .versus -h .. Petitioner M.C.D. & ORS. Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. .-A-'*- W.P.(C) 1650/2007 & C.M. No.3034/2007 SUME.RMAL PATAWARI TRUST Through Mr. Kuljeet Ravval, Adv. -I-M.C.D. & ORS. .....Respondents Mr.Ajay Aroraa,-Advocate for MOD. % W.P.(C) 1651/2007 & C.M.. No.3036/2007 ASHULOK TRADERS P. LTD. & ORS. Through Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv. Petitioners 5-M.C.D. & ORS. W.P.(C) 1716/2007 D.D.INDUSTRIES LTD H-None. M.C.D & ORS .........Respondent '^^^0/2006, 15717/2006, 142-14472007, m-M007. 421-422/2007. 4U-49<)/2007. 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007 ^7VW07 622/2007 640/2007^ 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, ' 2995/200/, 4128/2007. 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 1647/2007, 1649-1651/2007, 1710/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 S Ptif't' 7 of 18 • '-{j'l -:r 4 ^ :' 'i' i'~ ■ , J W.P.(C) 2995/2007 & C.M. No.5607/2007 HARBI-IAJAN BARPIA & ANR Through None, H-Petitioners ....Respondent Through Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay. Vernia, Advocate for DDA. MCD i W.P.(C) 4128/2007 & C.M.Nos.7776/2007, 10826/2007 & 2814/2008 NAJAFGA.RH ROAD INDUSTRIES ASSO Through Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. -1- ....Petitioner M.C.D. ....Respondent W.P.(C) 4365/2007 & C.M. No.8184/2007 AM ARNATPI PAS.RI.CHA ' Through None, -I-MCD & ORS. • Through W.P.(C) 4482/2007 & C.M. Nos.8384/2007, 3571/2008 & 1793/2009 AITZOO INDUSTRIES Through None, + M.C.D. & ORS. •V-' Respondents Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for MCD. W.P.(C) 4483/2007 & C.M. Nos.8386/2007 & 3572/2008 MEGHA ENTERPRISES Through None, -I- '^974.14<J7S/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007 393-3)4/2007, 421-422/2007, 4.96-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007 573/2007 622/2007 63S 640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007. 1396/2007. 1647/2007, ^^^-^-44^2007. 4490-4492/2007. H95/2007 & P(i(>cH of IH 1 - -S'' MrAJay Auoraa, Advocate for MCD. vy-p (C) 4485/2007 & CM. Nos.8389/2007 & 3579/2008 R,K.CHEMICAL:.W01CKS ....Petitioner Through None. ' versus M.C.D. &ORS. -I-t Mr.Ajay Aroraa,-Advocate tor MCD. M.C.D. &ORS. W.P.(C) 4486/2007 & C.M. Nos.8391/2007 & 3570/2008 UNI PL-AST. IND; • -I-Through None, Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for M.CD. Mr.Aiay Verma, Advocate for DDA. M.C.D. & ORS. V^/.p.(C) 4487/2007 & C.M. Nos.8393/2007 &. 3575./2008 K.ON1CA INDUSTRIES Through None, A ......Respondents M'r.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. M.C.D. & ORS. W.P.(C) 4488/2007 & C.M. Nos.8395/2007 & 3573/2008 A1.3BA INDUSTRIES . -I-T'hrough. None ■ versus VV.P.(C) 4490/2007 & C.M. Nos.8399/2007 & 3577/2008 .lUPITORELRCTRICALS M.C.D. & ORS. . 'fhrough ■1 Through None. IV.F.fC') .'V/M'. ljlH9S-t39I!l/20fh% N>J7-i-I^J97S/2im, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 1-12-143/2007, 393-394/2007. 42I-422./2007, 496-499/2007. 5J7/2007, 540/2007, 569:2007, 573/2007. 622./2007, 638-640/200-7. 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, i647/2007. 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007. 2995/2007. 4128/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-44920.007. -4495/2007 <i 4498/200-' Prif;e 9 of IS r.ir-" ' ■ '1 I r -ftr I ■; t: • I Mr.AJay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. M..r.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. M.C.D. & ORS. ■ Through W.P.(C) 449172007 & C.M. Nos.8401/2007 & 3574/2008 .!ATN STEEL ....7.7;/ -h f Through None, Mr.AJay Verma, Advocate for DDA. M.C.D.&ORS. . Through W.P.(C) 4492/2007 & C.M. Nos.8403/2007 & 3576/2008 .IAIN gene ;ral ' 4-Petitioner' Through None, M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate lor M.CD. W.P.(C) 4495/2007 & C.M. Nos.84Q8/2007, 8409/2007 & 3570/2008 RELIABLE PRINTING INK CO. Throua;b c.' None. M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajav Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 4498/2007 & C.M. Nos.8414/2007, 3578/2008, 1794/2009 & 7943/2010 MALHOTRA ENOE'RPRISES Through None. • ■ versus -i M.C.D.&ORS.. Respondents !\0.s. 1.^895-13918/21I0(), I4V74-I497<V2006. 15120/2006, 394/2007, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007,, 393-421-422/200 7, 496-499/2007. 5 1 7/200 7, 540/200 7, 569/200 7. 573/200",' 622/2007, 638-640/2007. 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007. 1396/2007, !64Zp007, 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007. 2995/2007. 4128/200?. 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, ' , 4495/2007 I'tiw iO of 18 I. ,» » ' 'tm •- * : I * r\t i'{ Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for i MCD. W P CO 6973/2007 & C.M. No. 13229/2007 SAEEDA KHATOON SIDDIQUI & ORS -t Petitioners i Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. ....Respondent MCD CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR ■ INDERMEET ICAUR; J. (oral) Vide this common judgment, the aforenoted bunch of writ petitions shall be di.sposed of The petitioners before this Court are all property holders of plots at Rama Road, Najafgarh. Road Industrial Area, New Delhi. There is no dispute that Rama Road'.in West Delhi was conceived as an "industrial area" for extensive industries with large industrial plots. It is also not in dispute that each of these plots were sub-divided into several plots. The case of the ' petitioner is that their building plans were purportedly sanctioned by the Corporation i.e. enstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi (now represented by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). Their revised building plans also approved and sanctioned. Property tax had been' deposited by •were IV.P.(C) ,Vos. 13895-139.18/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006. 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-49.9/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 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/^007 & ■4498/2007 638-Piigc 11 of 18 "{I t 1' '-i ••If 'U *^. 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 and individuaf registered sale deeds had been entered into between 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 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. . them. A- .connections were obtained. In the counter a'ffidavit, the respondent Corporation had taken 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. . an On 04.09.2006, the Court had noted that the respondent MCD shall caiiy out the direction of the Monitoring Committee and it was on the l^os. 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, 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007, ■2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & , v». V 'uiiw * r t 11 «r»-' r. :fn !■ - xecommendations of the Monitoring Committee that the proposed action had been taken against the properties of the petitioners. The Single .kidge of this had directed the matter to be listed along with the connected petition

(C) Nd.4589/2p03 Kalvan Sanstha Matter to be listed before the Division Bench. Till that time, status quo was directed to be maintained. Court % i.e. W.P. 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. 6 The Division Bench had disposed of this vvrit 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 were developed in the 70 's and over the years, ■ have deteriorated considerable in. terms of physical infrastructure and, in some ca.ses 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 ckissified as commercial. There may also be a need to see.- whether further densification is possible in terms of creating W.P.(0 Nos. 13895-13918/2(106. N974-14978/2006, 15/20/2006, I57l7/2(m. 142-144/2007, 393-3 94/200 7, 421-422/200 7, 496-499/2007, 5 1 7/200 7, 540/20 0 7, 569/200 7, 573/2001, (,22/200 7, 638-640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007. 1191/2007, .1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649-1651/2007, 1716.12007, '2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365./'2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007, & 4498/2.001 Piiye 13 (if 18 IZP IV. «<!f t<- -- smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number of industries/units. Guidelines for redevelopment of existing industrial areas shall be framed within 2 years by DBA in consultation with GNCTD and the local body. Till such time, the existin£ 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 need for optimizing the use around these areas thro ugh the process of redevelopment. % This process of upgradation 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 betterment and .subsequent maintenance through suitable Operation and Maintenance arrangements. " The moot question i.e. till what time "the existing sub-divisions may % continue" was to be ainswered. The Court of Hoirble 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.(C} No.'S. 13895-139111/2006, 14974-N978/2006, 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, 63.8-640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 16.49-1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & Page 14 of .18 r 'nrrnjijLilJiilJ. :.»r *; <14 r ■ industrial units are ye^t 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 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 different opinions 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 Regulations which have been formulated after the promulgation of MPD-2021. The petitioners had also sought time for the same purpose. • V l''oday, this Court has been informed that the Delhi Development Authority vide its Notification dated 01.04.2011 has notified certain guidelines i.e. "Regulatio and Guidelines for Redevelopment of Existing Planned Industrial Area" (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). It is ns f¥.P.(C) Nos. /3S95-I3y18/2006, 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 & ' . ' . IS of 18 v/1 -- .1 n t TI ' T u v ~11L1 not in dispute that these Regulations would be applicable to the properties of the petitioners. 13 Clause 2.3 of these Regulations is relevant. It reads herein as under:- f "Redevelopment of Existing Planned Industrial Areas through sub-division ■ofplots. Master Plan-2021 also realizes that the existence of smaller plots by sub­ dividing 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 Math the required mandatory documents as per BBL/to the satisfaction of the Local Body. " 14 These Regulations thus recognize the existence of smaller plots by sub-division from the larger plots. The owners of the sub-divided plots h been directed to collectiyely 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. %\ ave W.P.(C) No.,. 13895-13918/2006. 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007 193-394/2007, 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, p)95/2007. 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/20071 4490-4492/2007 4495/2007 & 1 *'' T TMr In view of formulation of these Regulations, learned counsel tor the petitioners submits that they would seek permission withdraw their petitions with liberty granted to them to approach the local body. They-are permitted to do so. of this Court to These petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to permif 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 This is in. view of the submission of the granted for the said .purpose. petitioners that in some cases there are several co-owners of one plot and to U • collate the documents it would be a cumbersome process for which sometime would be required. It is made clear that all co-owners of one plot will make this collective • application to the local body. 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 noimis. iy.l\(C) 'Nos. I.^895-J.yjis/2006, Nl97'>-l4r/H/200(), 15120/2000, 15717/2006, NI2-IU'2007, .W-39^/2007, 42i-422/2007, 496-499/200 7, 5 1 7/2007, 540/200 7, 569./200 7, 573/200 7. 622/200 7, 6.^5-640/2007, 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.Q007 A' F/il'e 17 of 18 c % I 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 (winch, may be by registered A.D. post, courier or any mode of accepted sei-vice). .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 respectiye rights and contentions of the parties. I p \ f 20 Petitions disposed of in the above terras, i ■; . IN!>IvRM.JilET KAUR, J FEEfRIJARY 06,- 2017 A-I ! ' U, \ I i i I ■ I l'l'.P.(C) Nos. 13S95-1391S/2006, N974-N978/2006, 15120/2006, I57n/2006, 142-!44/2007, 393-394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, '517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007,. 622/2007, 63H-640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191,2007. 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007.' 2995/2007. 412S/2007, 4365/2007. 4482-448.1/2007, 44S5-44SS./2007. 4490-4492./2(;07. 4475.2007 &. Page 18 of! 8 I ^ 44n/2()l)7 ! \ \ \ \ \ v. • > -n '7..' I i I \

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment: 06.02.20J 7 * % W.P.(C) 422/2007 & C.M. No.757/2007 ASHWINI KAPOOR + None. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MOD. MOD & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR