Residents Welfare Association F Block v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors

O R D E R %

13.11.2024

¶1The petitioner has raised three grievances with regard to a building plan dated 13.02.2008 in respect of plot No.F-19, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi ["subject property"].

¶2The petitioner's grievances arise out of alleged unauthorized construction at the subject property, including sanction of a building plan which provides for several shops in the basement and ground floor of the subject property, which is in excess of the maximum of four shops, in terms of the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶3As far as the first aspect is concerned, the petitioner sought sealing of the shops. The latest status report filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ["MCD"] dated 20.09.2024 states that the shops at the basement and ground floor of the property have already been sealed on 19.09.2024. Learned counsel for the MCD states that the shops were subsequently de-sealed temporarily, but have been re-sealed, and remain sealed, as of today.

¶4The second aspect concerns a challenge to the sanction plan itself. As far as this aspect is concerned, a sanctioned plan is susceptible to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for MCD under Section 347B of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ["the Act"]. It is open to the petitioner to take the available statutory remedy in this regard.

¶5The third aspect concerns an allegation of unauthorized construction in the subject property. As far as this aspect is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a notice dated

28.11.2011 of the Junior Engineer (Bldg.), West Zone, MCD, from which it prima facie appears that the construction was unauthorized.

¶6Ms. Ojha, learned counsel for MCD, states that MCD will inspect the property from this perspective within one week from today, and if the construction is found to be in deviation from the sanctioned plan, necessary steps will be initiated in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶7Mr. Rajinder Kumar, learned counsel, enters appearance on behalf of ten individuals, who have filed applications for impleadment and directions in the present writ petition. These individuals claim to be the owners of the impugned shops. Although the applications are not on The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. Board, Mr. Rajinder Kumar, states that they have been filed under Diary No.E-5204659/2024. Copies of the applications have been handed over to the Court and are taken on record. The Registry is directed to number the applications.

¶8As far as the interests of the shop owners are concerned, it is made clear that the directions passed in this writ petition are not intended to prejudice the rights and contentions of the owners of the subject property or impede the remedies available to them in accordance with law. MCD is directed to take action after strict compliance of statutory formalities. The remedies available to the shop owners against any actions taken by MCD are also reserved.

¶9The petition is disposed of with the above observations. All pending applications also stand disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J NOVEMBER 13, 2024 'sv'/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5173/2016 & CM APPLs. 21541/2016, 66287/2024 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION F BLOCK.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohan Thawani and Mr. Pratul Pratap Singh, Advocates versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Sunieta Ojha, SC for MCD with Ms. Vasudha Priyansha and Ms. Divija Vashisht, Advocates Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Siddhart Dutt, Advocate for R-2 Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate for Shop owners. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN