Dhani Ram Mittal v. M.C.D. &Ors

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral) For orders,see files ofW.P. (C) No. 13895/20^6. FEBRUARY 06, 2017 A INDERMEET KAUR, J ) oM 3N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date ofJudgment: 06.02.2017 -I-W.P.(C)No.13895-9]8/2006&C.M. Nos.10894/2006,13430/2006& 13431/2006 AN[L DHWAN & OTHERS Petitioners MUNICIPALCORP OF DELHI&ANR Mr.Aja}'Aroraa. Advocate for MOD. Mr.Ajay Vernia, Advocate for DDA. I- \'V.P.(C) 14974-978/2006 DINESHKUMAR& ORS. Petitioners MCD &ANR Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. V/,P.(C) 15120/2006& C.M. No.12066/2006 MARISH CHANDERSETHI PetiLionw Fhrough Mr.ManishSrivastavaand Mr. Ashoi< Kumar Sharnia, Advocaies, .....Respondents Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. Mr.Aja)- Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 15717/2006& C.M. No.12591/2006 MlNAKSHlTRfVEDI petitioner ihroLigh .Mr.ManishSrivastavaand Mr. Ashok K.uinai' Siiarma. Advocates. Raspondeni,, 1hrough Mr.AjayAroraa,Advocatefor MCD. iV'i'r.Ai'ayVerma, Advocate foi' DfXA. um-iJ9i8/20fi6, N<)74..i4V7s,yw6, !}7!7m06 ^?!-n2/2V07, 'm-49m(W7, 5l?/2')l:7, 5-10/200', 56V2M7. 171/2//,>7 f2V^'W7 '/U 6,2/2007. 752.754/20<>r, n9I/>fW7, ISV6/2i)07 !6-^7,2,07. I6!.j'/20i'7'J7m^ moo? "a • of Hi -t-V/.P.(C) 142/2007 & C.M. No.256/2007 JEEVAN JYOTI ENTERPRISES P.LTD , Mr. Maneesh Goyal, Adv. MCD & ORS. • W.P.(C) 143/2007 & C.M. No.258/2007 INSPIRATION DEALERS P.LTD. Mr. ManeeshGoyal, Adv. iVlCD &ORS. Mr.Ajay Verraa, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 144/2007 & C.M. No.260/2007 HUM LOG TRADERS P.LTD. Mr..ManeeshGoyal. Adv. M(. D&ORS. Respondenls Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate Ibr MCD. Vv'.!\(C) 393./2007 & C.M., No.713/2007 ANfLAGGARWAL • 'versus M.C.D. &ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocale for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 394/2007 & C.M. No.715/2007 . RAJINDERGOEL iVI-CTJ).&ORS. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, ISI20/2006, 15717/2006, i42-i44/2007, 393-394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-49W2007, 517/2007, >40/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 6^8-640/2007, 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. 4490-4497/2007 44i)sr)lilj7 ' "Paoe 2 of //>' / ; -I- / o6 W.P.(C) 421/2007 & C.M. No.755/2007 RAJNI NASSA ' Tlirough MCD & ORS. Mr.Aja}' Verma, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 422/2007 & C.M. No.757/2007 ASHWINI KAPOOR MCD &ORS. Tlirough W.P.CC)496/2007 & C.M. No.897/2007 SANJIV KUMAR JAIN MCD &ORS. W.P.(C) 497/2007 & C.M. No.899/2007 VINOD KUMAR SHARMA ' . MCD &ORS. Tlirough Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA W.P.(C) 498/2007 & C.M. No.905/2007 RAI cS: SONS P. LTD. M.C.D. &ORS. I'KP.CQ Am 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, 171-6/2007, 2995/2007. 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007.449 VH)07 .IJ t / + I W.P.(C) 499/2007 & C.M. No.907/2007 RAKESH GULATI None, M.C.D. &ORS. + W.P.(C) 517/2007 & G.M. No.953/2007 •, SUMIT RATHOR & ORS. Petitioners M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate i'orMCD. W.P.(C) 540/2007 & C.M. No.1003/2007 RAJEEV KUKREJA None, MCD & ORS. i + W.P.(C) 569/2007 & C.M. No.1051/2007 KAILASPI DEVI MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Mr.Ajay Verma, i I-W.P.(C)573/2007&C.M. No.1057/2007 SANTOSPI KUMAR VERMA MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for MCD. Advocate for DDA. Advocate for MCD. Advocate for DDA. !V.R(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, 1396/2007i 1647/2007, 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & P(i;,^e4ofl8 10^' • r W.P.(C) 622/2007 &C.M. No. 1152/2007 GAGAN CHOPRA MCD & ORS ' Tlirough Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate tor MCD. -i-W.P.(C) 638/2007 &C.M.N0.1,171/2007 ANDND SWAROOP NAYYAR None, i MCD (& ORS -f W.P.(C)639/2007&c!m. No.1173/2007 VIRENDER KUMAR • MC D&ORS Mr.AjayAroraa, Advocatefor MCD. • i-W.P.(C) 640/2007 & C.M. No.1175/2007 i RAJESH KUMAR KHOSLA MCD &ORS Respondent Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. •I W.P.(C) 642/2007 & C.M. No. 1180/2007 I M/S BHIIOVMCHAND BAID MCD &ORS Respondent IKP.(CJ IS'us. 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, 4491/2007 tV- . raj^5ofl8 V -/ |D9 W.P.(C) 752/2007 & C.M. No. 1410/2007 BONANZO ENGG. & CHEMICALS P.LT IV1.C..D. & ORS. Respondent I-W.P.(C) 753/2007 & C.M. No.1412/2007 NAVEEN JAIN & ANR MCD & ORS. Respondent •f W.P.(C) 754/2007 & C.M. No.l414/2007 .lAGDISH MALHOTRA & ANR ^'ersus MCD eg: ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. . Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. •I W.P.(C) 1191/2007 & C.M.. No.2117/2007 DILIP SINGH GHOLCHA ' M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. i-W.P.(C) 1396/2007 & C.M. No.2556/2007 DHANI RAM MITTAL . None. M.C.D. &ORS. Respondent Througli py.p.fc) iVos. 13895-139]8/2006, l497'/-14')78/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007,'393-394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/200 7, 51 7/2007, 540/200 7, 569/200 7, 573/200 7, 622/200 7; 638-640/2007. 042/2007, 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 t.6 Pu'^e6(,fl8 / + + W.P.(C) 1647/2007 & C.M. Nos.3028/2007 & 16429/2013 K.L.J.RESOURCES LTD. & ORS. Petitioners Tlirough Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv. M.C.D. & ORS. Througli Mr.Ajay Verraa, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 1649/2007 & C.M. No.3032/2007 DEPENDABLE CONSUMER GOODS P.LT Tlirough Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv. M.C.D. &ORS. W.P.(C) 1650/2007 & C.M. No.3034/2007 SUMERMAL PATAWARI TRUST Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv. M.C.D. &ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocatefor MCD. VV.P.(C) 1651/2007 & C.M. No.3036/2007 ASHULOK TRADERS P. LTD. & ORS. Petitioners Mr. Kuljeet Rawal,Adv. M.C.D. & ORS. W.P.(C) 1716/2007 ' D.D.INDUSTRIES LTD llirough M.C.D & ORS Respondent /Yav. 13S95-13918/2006, 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 & / / + + + — Ill W.P.(C) 2995/2007 & C.M. No.5607/2007 HARJBHAJAN BARHA & ANR Petitioners Tlirougli Respondent Througli W.P.(C)4128/2007& C.M.Nos.7776/2007,10826/2007& 2814/2008 , NAJAFGARIi ROAD INDUSTRIESASSO Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. Respondent Mr.AjayAroraa, Advocate for MCD. W.P.(C) 4365/2007 & C.M. No.8184/2007 AMARNATHPASRICHA MCD &ORS.. 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 M'ith Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for MCD. W.P.(C)4483/2007& C.M. Nos.8386/2007& 3572/2008 MEGHAENTERPWSES IV.P.fC) 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, 622/20oi 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/^007 & Pn,/8ofl8 I ^ 1)^ M.C.D. & ORS. + W.P.(C) 4485/2007 & C.M. NOS.8389/2007& 3579/2008 • R.K.CHEMICAL WORKS M.C.D. & ORS. -I-W.P.(C) 4486/2007 & C.M. Nos.8391/2007 & 3570/2008 UNI PLAST IND. M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. • + V/.P.(C) 4487/2007 & C.M. Nos.8393/2007 & 3575/2008 KONICA INDUSTRIES M.C.D. & ORS. •I-W.P.(C) 4488/2007 & C.M. Nos.8395/2007 & 3573/2008 ABBA INDUSTRIES ' T'hrough None, M.C.D, & ORS. Tlirough Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. I-VV.P.(C)4490/2007 & C.M. Nos.8399/2007 & 3577/2008 JUPITOR ELECTRICALS l3895-i39im0i)<), 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 3<J3-394/2007, 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-A492Q0n7. 4495/2007 & 449H/200'' Pa['e 9 of IS • V / 1A2> M.C.D. & ORS. W.P.(C) 4491/2007 & C.M. Nos.8401/2007 & 3574/2008 JAIN STEEL M.C.D.&ORS. . Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MCD. W.P.(C) 4492/2007 & C.M. Nos.8403/2007 & 3576/2008 •IAIN GENERAL M.C.D. & ORS. W.P,(C) 4495/2007 & C.M. Nos.8408/2007, 8409/2007 & 3570/2008 RELIABLE PRINTING INK CO. M.C.D. &ORS. W.P.(C) 4498/2007 & C.M. Nos.84]4/2007, 3578/2008, 1794/2009& 7943/2010 MALHOTRA ENTERPRISES Throueh M.C.D.&ORS. l'KP.(C) .'Y,;.v. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-3<)4/200y, 421-422/2007, 496-49W2007, 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 & Page. 10 of 18 -11^ Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chetan Gautani, Adv for MCD. + W.P.(C) 6973/2007 & C.M. No. 13229/2007 SAEEDA KHATOON SIDDIQUI & ORS Petitioners Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. MCD Respondent CQRAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR liNDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral) Vide this common judgment,'the aforenotedbunch of writ petitions shall be disposed of. 1he petitionersbefore,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 extensiveindustrieswith large industrialplots. It is also not in dispute that each ofthese plots were sub-dividedinto severalplots. The case ofthe I petitioneris that their building plans were purportedlysanctioned by the Corporationi.e. erstwhileMunicipalCorporationof Delhi (now represented by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). Their revised buildingplans were also approved and sanctioned. Property tax had been deposited by }V.P.(C) iWos. 13S95-I39IS/2006, N974-N97S/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 & j them. Individualpetitionershad purchasedtheir individualplots from the erstwhile owners. Since these industrialplots were large in size (in some case being more than 10 acres and above), the plots had been sub-divided and individual registered sale deeds had been entered into between the individualpetitionersand the erstwhileowners. Property'tax and house tax were also being paid by the petitioners. Conveyancedeeds had also been executedby theDDA in favourofthe petitionersfor conversionofthe lease hold rights inthesepropertiesinto free-hold. The petitionershad carriedout 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 allegedillegalmis-user. Thesewritpetitionswere accordinglyfiled. In the counter affidavit, the respondent Corporation had taken an objectionthat the policy of the Departmentdoes not permit them to sub divide a plot and the sub-dividedstatus ofan originalplot cannotbe 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 W.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, 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007'& Page 12of 18 / I& recommendationsofthe MonitoringCommitteethat the proposedactionhad beentakenagainstthe propertiesofthe petitioners. The SingleJudge ot this Court had directedthe matter to be Hsted along with the connectedpetition i.e. W.P. (C) No.4589/2003Kalvan SansthaMatter to be listed before the V DivisionBench. Till thattime, statusquo was directedto be maintained. •tf •5 The petitioners before the Division Bench had undertakenthat all illegal deviations/constructionswould be demolished by themselves voluntarily.This monitoringcontinuedbeforethe DivisionBench. The DivisionBench,had disposedofthis writ petitionon 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. Clause7.6.1 reads herein as under;- "7.6.1 ExistingPlannedIndustrialAreas These industrializedareas were developedin the, 70's and over the years, have deterioratedconsiderablein terms ofphysicalinfrastructureand, in some cases deficiencieson this score have persistedin an overall sense. Besides, there have been changes in the nature ojactivitiesin some of the areas and there have also been demandsfor using part of the plotsfor activities, yvhich could be classifiedas commercial There may also be a need to see whetherfurther densificationis possible in terms of creating WP.(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, 57.S/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 & Pii<'e 13 of 18 y 1'^ smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number of industries/units. Guidelinesfor redevelopmentof existing industrial areas shall beframed M'ithin.2years by DDA in consultationwith GNCTD and the local body. Tillsuch time, the existins sub divisions may continue. There is, therefore, a need for modernizationand up-gradation of the existingindustrial areas with due regard to environmentalconsiderations. Since most of the Industrial areas are located along the Mass Public TransportCorridors,there is also a needfor optimizingthe use aroundthese areas through theprocess ofredevelopment. This process of upgradation and redevelopmentwill 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 answered. The Court of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rekha Sharma held that sub divisions are permissiblebut was of the opinionthat the petitionerswere 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) Nos. 13895-13918/2006, I4974-N97S/2006, I5I20/2006, 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 <£ Page U of 18 v 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 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. Today, this Court has been informed that the Delhi Development Authority vide its Notification dated

01.04.2011 has notified certain guidelines i.e. "Regulations and Guidelines for Redevelopment of Existing Planned Industrial Area" (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). It is W.P.(C) /\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, 540/200 7, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638-640/200 7, 642/200 7, 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 ct I'nge 15 of 18 Xv 11'^ not in disputethattheseRegulationswould be applicableto thepropertiesof the petitioners. Clause 2.3 of these Regulations is relevant. It reads herein as under:- "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 guidelinesfor regularization ofsuch sub-divisions. Accordingly,the owners ofsub-divided plots shall collectivelyprepare and submitthe Layoutplan toLocalBodyfor approval along with the required mandatory documents as per BBL/to the satisfaction of the Local Body." These Regulationsthus recognize the existence of smaller plots b}' sub-divisionfrom the largerplots. The owners ofthesub-dividedplots have been directedto collectivelyprepare and submit a layout plan to the local body along with the requiredmandatorydocumentsto the satisfactionof 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 developmentcontrolnorms giveninthe Guidelines/Regulations. W.P.(C) Nos. 13S95-139IS/2006, 14974-14978/2006, I5I20/2006, I57I7/2006, 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 & Page 16of 18 §0 ]5 In view of foiTnulation of these Regulations, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they would seek permission of this Court to witlidraw their petitions with liberty granted to them to approach the local body. They are permitted to do so. These petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty grantedto the petitioners to permit 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 granted for the said purpose. This is in view of the submission of the petitioners that in some cases there are several co-owners of one plot and to 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. fhe applications of the petitioners will be considered in accordance with iav\' aad approval of the layout plan will be.answered by the local body in accordance with kiw. The sanction of the building plan on the individual plots will, thereafter be governed by MPD-202] development control norms. ir./'.fC) Nos. 13895-13918/2006.. 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2000, 15717/2006, I'12-144/2007, 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 & P!i<,'c 17 of 18 •/ /al 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 (which may be by registered A.D. post, .courier or any mode of accepted service). Needless to state that if the i:)eiitioners are aggiieved by the action of the respondent, they may take steps in accordance Vt'ith law. This order is passed without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties. Petitions disposed of in the above terms. FEBRUARY 06, 2017 A INDERMEET KAUR, H'./\(C) AV/.v. I3895-139IS/2006, N<)74-N97S/20n6, }5l2()/2(m. I57IV2(I06, I42-!44/2(i(l7. .m-394/2007, '121-422/2007, 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-I65u'20<n, 1716/2007. 2995/2007, 412H/200-7, 4365/2007, 44S2-44H3/2007, 44S5-44HH/2007, 4490-4492/2007 4495/2007 ..t 449H/2007 I'ni'c ofhS

• IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date ofJudgment: 06.02.2017 + W.P.(C) 1396/2007 & C.M. No.2556/2007 DHANI RAM MITTAL M.C.D. &ORS. Respondent Mr.AJay Verma, Advocate for DDA. CQRAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR