Sumermal Patawari Trust v. M.C.D. & Ors

\ $•- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ° I^ate of Judgment: 06.02.2017 +

W.P.(C) 1650/2007 & C.M. No.3034/2007 SIJMERMAL PATAWARI TRUST Mr. Kuljeet Rawah Adv. M C.D. & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLh MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR. J. (oral) lor orders, see files of W.P. (C) No. 13895/2006/ INDERMEET KAUR, .1 I EBRl ARY 06, 2017 A %- * 3N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Oat:e ofJudginenl: 06.02.20J 7 -I-No. 13895-918/2006 & C.M. Nos. 10894/2006, 13430/2006 & 13431/2006 - ANIL DEWAN& OTHERS Petitioners 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 &OR.S. Petitioners Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate lEr MOD. Mi-.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDa. i

W.P.{C) 15120./2006 & C.M. No.12066/2006 HARISH CHANDER SETHI lfo.titioner rhrough Mr.Manish Srivastava and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sha.rnia, .Advocates. ^ ^ 1 hroiigh Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MOD, W.P.(C) 15717/2006 &.. C.M. No.!25<j;/2006 MINAKSHITRIVEDI through Mr.Manish Sriva.stava and Mr. /-Vshok Kumar Sharma. Advoe-ates, MCD & ANR , , ! hrough Mr.Ajay .Aroraa, Advocate lor MCD. N'l r. Aj ay Vei-m a, A dvoc: ate I or D! 9 A. /.r;2«vr;,v6. ?.h. i-l-mnMil. m.49<i/2(W7, 5l7/2'lf;7. Tim'. 50^min. S73M. 62Vm7 m tmr m7-m7/vw;. »^ns.4mr7nn.K 44%-umaiin, .imnjio: a 1 of m II -.J I-W,P.(C) 142/2007 & C.M. No.256/2007 .1 EE VAN .lYOTl ENTERPRISES P.LTD . Through Mr. Maneesh Goyal, Adv. MCD&ORS. ^ Mr.AJay Verma, Advocate for DDA. I

W.P.(C) 143/2007 & C.M. No.258/2007 INSPIRATION DEALERS P.LTD. Mr. Maneesh Goyal, Adv. " Respondent Ihroiigh Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. i-144/2007 & C.M. No.260/2007 HUM LOG TRADERS P.LTD. petitioner 1 hrough Mr. .Maneesh Goyal. Adv. ^ 1 hrough Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. t Vv.P.(C) 3SG./2007 & C.M. No.7n/200'7 ANILAGGARWaL 1 hrough ' versus M.C.D. &ORS. n , , T hrough Mr.Ajay Aroraa. .Advocate for MCD. ) u/ n //-.X OA . ,AAA Mr.Ajay Verrna. Advocate for DDa. ■f W.P.(C) 394/200/ & C.M. No.71V2007 . RA.nNDERGOBi, M.C.D. &ORS. A , ! hrough Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. .V..V, I3tm.n9l8/2im. l4974.Nm/2im, 15120/2006, IV/I7Qm :4> '44';u,y <«? 594/2007. 42i.422/2007, 496-499/2007, 5,772007, UO/2007, 569/2,m t »,mr, 7,2.754,2,m. ,mn."7. ^ 44,5.-,4amm. PiiRe 2 of IS I-W.P.(C) 421/2007 & C.M. No.755/2007 RAJNI NASSA MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. +

W.P.(C) 422/2007 & C.M. No.757/2007 ASHWINIICAPOOR petitioner MC"&0RS. ^ 1 hrough +

W.P.(C) 496/2007 & C.M. No.897/2007 SANJIV KUMAR JAIN petitioner ® ORS. ^ Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DD.'\. I

W.P.IC) 497,/2007 & C.M. No.899/2007 VlNtOD KUMAR SHARMA . .petitioner None. .versus mod & ORS. ^ 1 hrough Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA ^ P.(C) 498/2007 & C.M. No.905/2007 RAI&SONSP.LTD. I Through M-^-D-&ors. H'J\(C) .^os. 13S95-LV)imon6, 14974-14978/2006. 15120/2006. 15717/2006 142-14,ipo07 191 7S2.7»p.m. ""mo7. mmim. ,»7/2"07. /«».. .Mwwr ",™; Pti.i>i'3 of 18 +

W.P.(C) 499/2007 & C.M. No.907/2007 RAKESH GULATl M.C.D. & ORS. +

W.P.(C) 517/2007 & CM. No.953/2007 SUMIT RATPIOR & ORS. Petitioners M.C.D. & ORS. +

W.P.(C) 540/2007 & C.M. No. 1003/2007 RAJEEV KUKREJA MCD & ORS. +

W.P.(C) 569/2007 & C.M. No. 1051/2007 KAILASH DEVI MCD & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MOD. -t-W.P.(C) 573/2007 & C.M. No.1057/2007 SANTOSH KUMAR VERMA MCD & ORS. W.P.(C) /Vav. 13895-13918/2006. 14971-14978/2006, 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 A ' mm 1*. -V .■I'- ' • ¥r'M-- +

W.P.(C) 622/2007 & C.M. No. 1152/2007 GAGAN CHOPRA ' MCp & ORS iVIr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for MOD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate forDDA. 1-W.P.(C) 638/2007 & C.M. No.1171/2007 AN DND SW AROOP NAYYAR MCD & ORS Mr.Ajay Vemia, Advocate for DDA. ■f W.P.(C) 639/2007 & C.M. No. 1173/2007 VIRENDER KUMAR petitioner MC ro 6c ORS ^ t

W.P.(C) 640/2007 & C.M. No. 1175/2007 RA.IESH KUMAR KHOSLA MCD & ORS Respondent Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. -I W.P.(C) 642/2007 & C.M. No.l 180/2007 M/S BHIKAM CHAND BAID MCD & ORS ^ Respondent JKAtq Nos. 13895-I39IS/2006, 14974-14978/2006, l5]20/20()6, 15717^2006, 14^-144/^7 ?y? 394/200 7. 421-422/200 7, 496-499/2007. 51 7/2007. 540/2 00 7. 569/200 7. 573/200 7. 6^2/7007 040/2007. M2/2007. 752-754/2007. 1191/2007. 1396/2007. 1647/2007. 1649-1651/2007. 1716/2007. ..99W2007. 4128/2007. 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007. 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007. 4495/2007 .C. /'(/iff Of 18 jti H-W.P.(C) 752/2007 & C.M. No.1410/2007 BONANZO ENGG. & CHEMICALS P.LT M.C.D. &ORS. Respondent -I-W.P.(C) 753/2007 & C.M. No.1412/2007 N A VEEN JAIN & /\NR MCD&ORS. Respondent W.P.(C) 754/2007 & C.M. No. 1414/2007 JAGDISH MALHGTRA & ANR MCD & ORS. •

W.P.(C) 1191/2007 & C.M. No.2117/2007 D1 LIP SINGH GHOLCHA None. M.C.D. & ORS. ' ' 1 hrough Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. H

W.P.(C) 1396,/2(H)7 & C.M. No.2556/2007 DHANI RAM MITTA L 'Through M.C.D. &ORS. Respondent I hrougli W.PJC) ^■os. 13895-139111/20116, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007 191.. 394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 62272007, 618-640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007. 1191/2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007, 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007. i995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483.'2007. 4485-4488/2007, 4490-',492.'2007 4495/1007 r o f 18 + 4-Vv^.P.(C) 1647/2007 & C.M. Nos.302-8/2007 & 16429/2013 K.L.J.RESOURCES LTD. & ORS. Petitioners Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv. M.C.D. &ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Vernia, Advocate for DBA. 4-W.P.(C) 1649/2007 & C.M. No.3032/2007 DEPENDABLE CONSUMER GOODS P.LT Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv. M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DBA. W.P.(C) 1650/2007 & C.M. No.3034/2007 SUMERMAL PATAWARI TRUST Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv. M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DBA. 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 Verma, Advocate for DBA. -1 W.P.(C) 1716/2007 D.D.INDUSTRJES LTD M.C.D & ORS ^ Respondent Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DBA. (•KP.rg AV«. 13895-I39III/2006, 1497'!-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, I47-I44/2007 m 394/2007. 42,-422/2007. 496-499/2007. 5,7/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 57^'^ /ZZ '>40/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, ,!9,/2007. ,396/2007, ,647/2007, ,64')- ,65,/2007, ,7,6/2007 ZZnZ "'^1^2-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007. 4490-4492/2007. 4495/2007 & "*4VtS/2u(J7 7 of ,8 • ' I —>wiuy +

W.P.(C) 2995/2007 & C.M. No.5607/2007 HARBHAJAN BARPIA & ANR Petitioners ^ Respondent Mr.Ajay Verraa, Advocate for DDA. + W P (C) 4128/2007 & C.M.Nos.7776/2007, 10826/2007 & 2814/2008 NAJAFGARH road industries ASSO Ms. Nandni Salmi, Adv. _ Respondent Mr.Ajay Vernia, Advocate for DDA. +

W.P.(C) 4365/2007 & C.M. No.8184/2007 AMARNATHPASRJCHA petitioner MCD & ORS. P _ I ihrough * SoSZ"" =""«««,'"""" Ihrough M.C.D. &ORS. p Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. ' 4483/2007 & C.M. Nos.8386/2007 & 3572/2008 MiGHA ENTERPRISES 1 hrough W.P.(C) Nos. 13895-13918/201)6. 14974.14978/2006 I5nnnnnf 394/2007. 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007 517/2007 '5717/2006, 142-/44/2007, 393-640/2007, 642/2007 752-754/2007 llOWfim liJn ^ 573/2007, 622/2007, 638- ' ' - ' '^5-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 <6 Pfi}>L' 8 of 18 M.C.D. & ORS. +

W.P.(C) 4485/2007 &C.M.NOS.8389/2007 & 3579/2008 I R.K.CHEMICAL WORKS M.C.D. & ORS. +

W.P.(C) 4486/2007 & C.M. Nos.8391/2007 & 3570/2008 UNT PLASTIND. •Through M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraei, Advocate for MCD. i-VAP.(C) 4487/2007 & C.M. Nos.8393/2007 & 3575./2008 KONICA INDUSTRIES Th rough M.C.D. & ORS. +

W.P.(C) 4488/2007 & C.M. Nos.8395/2007 & 3573/2008 ABBA INDUSTRIES TErouuhv None M.C.D. & ORS. • Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma, Afovocate for DDA. •t W.P.fC) 4490/2007 & C.M. Nos.8399/20n7 & 3577/2008 .ll.iplTOR ELECTR.ICALS None. mr.(C) i\/)s. l3H9S-l3')l!l/2(m, I'l^)74.l4m/2l)(l(), I5I2(I/2(W(:, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2001, 517/2007, 540/2007. 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 63S-640/200.7, 642/200 7, 752-754/200 7, 1191/2007, 1396/200 7, 164 7/2001. 1649-1651/200 7. 1716/200 7.

299.5/2007. 4128/2007. 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007. 4485-4.488/2007, 44<)0-4492'2007. 4495/2007 4498/200" Paf-,9ofl8 I M.C.D. & ORS. ' MrAjay Verma, Advocate for DDA. +

W.P.(C) 4491/2007 & C.M. Nos.8401/2007 & 3574/2008 JAIN STEEL M.C.D.&: ORS. I-W.P.(C) 4492/2007 & C.M. Nos.8403/2007 & 3576/2008 JAIN GENERAL M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa, Advocate for M.CD. • I W.P.(C) 4495/2007 & C..M. Nos.8408/2007, 8409./2007 & 3570/D008 RELIABLE PRINTING INK CO. None. M.C.D. & ORS. Mr.Ajay Aroraa. Advocate for MCD. Mr.Ajay Verma. Advocate for DDA. ••I W.P.(C) 4498/2007 & C.M. Nos.8414/2007. 3578/2008, 1794/2009 & 7943/2010 MALHOTRA EN7ERPRISES Thi'ough None. I versus M.C.D.& ORS. H'-./'.fO 'V,«. I.^8<J5-I39I,V2II06, 14974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, !42-144/2007, 395-394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007. 517/2007, 540/2007, 509/2007. 573/2007, 622/2007, 638-640/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007. IJ9I/2007, 1396/2007, t6'l7//(!07, 1649-I63h2007, l/l'o/lOOl, 2995/.'.007, 4128/200,'. 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 " ' " ' I'a8!!: ' 0 oj 18 Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chetan Gautam, Adv for MCD. i +

W.P.(C) 6973/2007 & C.M.. No. 13229/2007 SAEEDA KHATOON SIDDIQUI & ORS Petitioners Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. MCD Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEETKAUR, 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 '■'i that each of these plots were sub-divided into several plots. The case of the | ■ ^i petitioner is that their building plans were purportedly sanctioned by the ; Corporation i.e. erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi (now represented by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). Their revised building plans were also approved and sanctioned. Property tax had been deposited by W.P.(C) Nns. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-149 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, 752-754/2007. 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 4498/1007 Pii^cllofl8 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), the plots had been sub-divided 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, certaiir 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 I-KP.fC) Nos. I3895-I39I8/2006, 149 74-14978/2006, 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 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.4589/2003 Kalvan Samtha Matter 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 Menibers 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 M'ere developed in the 7()'s and over the years, have deteriorated considerable in terms of physical irifrastnicture 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 densif cation is possible in terms of creating W.P.(C) Nos. I3S9S-I39I,S/2006. N974-14'.i7ll/20{j6, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-3)4/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/2007, 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 57.S/2007, 622/2007, 6311-640/200 7, 642/200 7, 752-754/200 7, 1191/200 7, 1396/200 7, 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 A p",,^ 13 of 18 9^. St.""- ji. l^v tliO °)1 smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number oj industries/units. Guidelines for redevelopment of existing industrial areas shall be framed within 2 years by DDA in consultation with GNCTD and the local body. Till such time, the existins sub divisions mav 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 through 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 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 ITon'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. I3S95-I39IH/20II6, 1497'!-N978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, t42-I44/2007, 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 14 of IS qC Li. 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 Motification 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 mP.(C) No.s. 13895-13918/2(106, 1497-1-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 15717/2006, 142-144/2007, 393-394/2007, 421-422/2007, 496-499/200 7 517/2007, 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007, 622/2007, 638-6)40/2007, 642/2007, 752-754/2007, 1191/2007, I396)/2007, 16)47/2007, 1649-1651/2007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007, 4365/2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007, 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 Pane 15 of 18 -I..:;.,.! ! i——..cr..' _ 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 sub-division of plots. Master Plan-2021 also realizes that the existence of smaller plots by sub dividing the larger plots and has recommended to prepare guidelines for regidarization 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 M>ith the required mandatory documents as per BBL/to the . satisfaction of the Local Body. " These Regulations thus recognize the existence of smaller plots by sub-division from the larger plots. The owners of the sub-divided plots 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) No.s. 13895-13918/2006, 14974-18978/2006, 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, 4485-4488/200?: 4490-4492/2007, 4495/2007 <6 , n In view of formulation oJ these Regulations, learned counsel toi the petitioners submits that they would seek permission of this Court to withdraw 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 granted to 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 oJ' one plot and to collate the documents it would be a cumbersome process for which I sometime would be required. It is made clear thai 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 norms. W.I\(0 Nos. 13895-13918/2006. 14974-14978/2006. 15120/2006. 15717/2006, 142-!44/2007, 393-394/2007. 421-422/2007. 496-499/2007. 517/2007. 540/2007, 569/2007, 573/2007. 622/2007, 6.^- 640/2007. 642/2007, 752-754/2007. 1191./2007, 1396/2007, 1647/2007. 1649-1651/7007, 1716/2007, 2995/2007, 4128/2007. 4365/2007. 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/2007. 4490-4492/2007. 449S.'2007 p"^,. HoflH After an order has been, passed b}' 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 sei'vice). Needless to state that it ihe 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 contentions of the parties. ^— ~ Petitions disposed of in the above terms. IN](>ERMEETK.AUR, J FE.B'R'UARY 06, 2017 M\R(C) /Vav. J3895-]39IS/2006, 1-^974-14978/2006, 15120/2006, 1571V200(,, 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, !716/2007. 2995,2007, 4128/2007, 4365,2007, 4482-4483/2007, 4485-4488/200", 4,(90-4492/2007, 4495/2007 & .4498/2007 Oagcl8o;'18 rj-MMh \ 0>JP, tjTfTSOl?^