Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 487

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, B.R. GAVAI, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
M.C. Mehta - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.4677 of 1985, 263, 264, 266, 450, 464, 470, 569, 563, 610 of 2006, 212, 229 of 2008, 144 of 2009 and Special Leave Petition (C) No.33454 of 2018
Decided On : 14-08-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the parties :Ranjit Kumar, (A.C.) Anitha Shenoy, (A.C.) A.D.N. Rao, Advocate (A.C.) Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Gurmeet Singh Makker, Suhasini Sen, Rajat Nair, Aman Gupta, Sanjiv Sen, Praveen Swarup, Amit Singh, Kanishik Chaudhary, Roy Dev, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Anil Grover, AAG, Haryana Dr. Monika Gusain, Noopur Singhal, Advocate Rahul Khurana, Advocate Sanjay Kumar Visen, Garima Prashad, Anil Katiyar, D.N. Goburdhun, Alok Gupta, Vijay Panjwani, Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate on Record Abhimanyu Bhandari, Advocate Roohina Dua, Advocate Cheitanya Madan, Advocate Siddharth Luthra, Abhimanyu Bhandari, Roohe Hina Dua, Cheitanya Madan, Naveen Kumar, Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate Yashraj Singh Deora, Rahul Narayan, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate Sanjana Nangia, Abhilasha Bharti, Prerna Mehta, Tileshwar Prasad, Naresh Aditya Madhav, Rachana Joshi Issar, Rahul Narayan, Jasbir Singh Malik, Usha Nandini V., M/s Saharya & Co. Prerna Mehta, Tileshwar Prasad, Naresh Aditya Madhav, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia , Ashutosh Kumar Sharma Bina Gupta, Petitioner(s)-in-Person B.V. Balram Das, Advocate Anil Katiyar, Advocate Praveen Swarup, Advocate Garima Prashad, Advocate D.N. Goburdhun, Advocate Naveen Kumar, Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate Rahul Narayan, Advocate Akriti Chaubey, Advocate Yashraj Singh Deora, Advocate Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate Aman Gupta, M/S. Saharya & Co., Mushtaq Ahmad, Usha Nandini. V, V. K. Verma, S. Chandra Shekhar, Prasanthi Prasad, Prakash Kumar Singh, Purnima Jauhari, Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Abhinav Mukerji, Surya Kant, M/S. Law Associates, Prashant Bhushan, Petitioner(s)-in-person Hardeep Singh Anand, M. C. Dhingra, Manu Shanker Mishra, Prakash Kumar Singh, Mr Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Anupama Nagangom, Karun Sharma, P.B. Suresh, Karthik Jayshankar, Kshitez Kaushik, For M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, M. C. Dhingra, Mushtaq Ahmad, Praveen Swarup, Prashant Bhushan, Usha Nandini. V, Hardeep Singh Anand, Manu Shanker Mishra, Prakash Kumar Singh, Petitioner-in-person V. K. Verma, Aman Gupta, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, M/S. Parekh & Co., Prakash Kumar Singh, Pravir Choudhary, Md. Farman, Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Sharmila Upadhyay, Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Sanjeev Anand, Uttara Babbar, Abhay Kumar, Satyendra Kumar, Sunil Kumar Jain, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Prashant Chaudhary, Suresh Chandra Tripathy, Praveen Swarup, P. Parmeswaran, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Devendra Singh, Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, Nikilesh Ramachandran, D. N. Goburdhan, Abhijit Sengupta, Binu Tamta, T. L. Garg, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Surya Kant, Tarun Johri, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ashwani Kumar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, M/S. Law Associates, Sanjay Kapur, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Sudhir Naagar, Yashraj Singh Deora, A. Venayagam Balan, S. Chandra Shekhar, Shiv Prakash Pandey, B. V. Balaram Das, Manju Jetley, Harish Pandey, Shekhar Kumar, Abhinav Mukerji, Annam D. N. Rao, Satish Aggarwal, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Senthil Jagadeesan, Prasanthi Prasad, Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Ajit Sharma, Prerna Mehta, Anu Gupta, Rukhsana Choudhury, M/S. Saharya & Co., Harsh V. Surana, Raj Kamal, Himinder Lal, Prashant Bhushan, M. P. Shorawala, Arvind Gupta, Abhas Kumar, Vivek Narayan Sharma, Milind Kumar, Kaveeta Wadia, Ajay Kumar Singh, Gagan Gupta, Yoginder Handoo, Jasmeet Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Akriti Chaubey , Prakash Ranjan Nayak, T. Mahipal, Garima Prashad, M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Rahul Narayan, Alok Gupta, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rajat Joseph, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Shekhar Prit Jha, Dr. Monika Gusain, S. S. Shroff, O. P. Bhadani, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ejaz Maqbool, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Anand Mishra, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, S. Janani, Ashok Anand, Karunakar Mahalik, Naveen R. Nath, Vishnu Sharma, M. M. Kashyap, A. Raghunath, K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Rajani Ohri Lal, Rakesh Mishra, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Right to property – Nobody can be deprived of property and right of residence otherwise in manner prescribed by law. When Statute prescribes a mode, property's deprivation cannot be done in other modes.
(2) Sealing of residential premises – Monitoring Committee is not authorized to take action concerning residential premises situated on private land. Monitoring Committee could not have sealed residential premises which were not misused for commercial purpose nor it could have directed demolition of those residential properties.

Headnote:
(A) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Sections 334 and 335 read with Sections 343, 345, 347(A) and 347(B) – Sealing of residential premises – Jurisdiction of Monitoring Committee – A person can be deprived of property by following a procedure in accordance with law – Monitoring Committee is not authorized to take action concerning residential premises situated on private land – If there is unauthorized construction or in case of deviation, requisite provisions are under DMC Act – Monitoring Committee was appointed and empowered by this Court to take action within powers conferred – This Court at no point in time has empowered Monitoring Committee to take action with respect to residential premises not used for commercial purpose – Monitoring Committee was authorized to take care of unauthorized colonies and Special Task Force was directed to remove encroachments from public roads and public streets – Order of this Court was confined to unauthorized colonies and commercial activities mentioned in report as to encroachment on public land – Monitoring Committee is doing its best to remove encroachments/unauthorized constructions or misuse of property, but that is related to encroachments on public land and unauthorized colonies, and at no point of time this Court has authorized Monitoring Committee to take action concerning residential premises which were standing on private land and were not being misused – Encroachment is a matter of concern but Monitoring Committee can act within four corners of powers conferred upon it and purpose for which court appointed Monitoring Committee – It cannot exceed its powers and take any action beyond its authorization by court – Power of sealing of property carries civil consequences – Monitoring Committee could not have sealed residential premises which were not misused for commercial purpose nor it could have directed demolition of those residential properties – When Monitoring Committee is not empowered to take action, incumbents could not have been deprived of due process of protection in accordance with law – Impugned reports and entire action of sealing pursuant thereto quashed. (Paras 17, 18, 32, 36, 43, 85, 86, 88 and 93)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 300A – Right to property – Nobody can be deprived of property and right of residence otherwise in manner prescribed by law – When Statute prescribes a mode, property's deprivation cannot be done in other modes – An action could have been taken in no other manner except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. (Para 87)
Facts of the case:
Authority of Monitoring Committee to seal residential premises on the private land particularly when they are not being used for the commercial purpose. Whether the Monitoring Committee could have sealed these residential premises is the only question to be examined in this order. Monitoring Committee was appointed and empowered by this Court to take action within the powers conferred. In the teeth of various statutes, it would act strictly within the four corners of the powers conferred on it by this Court.
Findings of Court:
Report of the Monitoring Committee and findings recorded by it are of no use as it had no such authority to go into the various questions. This Court did not appoint the Monitoring Committee concerning each and every residential building on private land not misused for commercial purposes and to deal with the same. In the present matter, this Court itself is monitoring the matter for a limited public purpose. It has not taken away the powers of statutory authorities under the Act concerning other matters except specified in the order.
Result : Directions issued.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

Right to Property: No individual can be deprived of their property or residence except in the manner prescribed by law. Deprivation must follow the specific procedures and modes established by relevant statutes (!) (!) (!) .
Authority of Monitoring Committees: The Monitoring Committee, appointed by the court, is not authorized to take action concerning residential premises on private land that are not used for commercial purposes. Its jurisdiction is limited to overseeing unauthorized colonies, encroachments on public land, and illegal constructions on public or government land (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Sealing and Demolition: The power to seal or demolish properties is conferred upon statutory bodies such as municipal corporations or development authorities under specific legislation. The Monitoring Committee's actions, especially concerning residential premises on private land not misused for commercial purposes, are not supported by statutory authority and are therefore illegal (!) (!) (!) .
Due Process and Legal Procedures: Any deprivation of property or residence must adhere to the due process of law, including statutory appeals and adjudication under relevant laws. The Monitoring Committee cannot bypass these procedures or usurp statutory powers (!) (!) (!) .
Scope of Court Orders: Court orders appointing Monitoring Committees have a limited scope, primarily focused on preventing misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes and illegal encroachments on public land. They do not extend to residential properties on private land used solely for residential purposes unless explicitly authorized (!) (!) (!) .
Regularization and Legal Rights: Owners of properties used for residential purposes have the right to seek regularization under applicable laws and policies. The procedures for such regularization are laid down in statutes like the DMC Act, which provides for appeals and statutory remedies. These rights cannot be overridden arbitrarily by the Monitoring Committee (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Enforcement of Laws: The enforcement of laws related to land use, construction, and property rights must be carried out by the statutory authorities in accordance with the law. Any action beyond their statutory powers, such as sealing residential premises not used for commercial purposes, is unlawful (!) (!) (!) .
Constitutional Protections: Articles of the Constitution protect the right to property and residence, emphasizing that deprivation must be through lawful procedures. Any action that violates these protections without following prescribed legal processes is unconstitutional (!) (!) (!) .
Limitations on Court-Directed Actions: Court orders cannot authorize actions that violate statutory rights or procedures. The court's role is to ensure lawful enforcement, not to permit arbitrary or extralegal measures (!) (!) .
Importance of Legal Procedures and Appeals: Property owners have the right to legal remedies, including appeals under the relevant statutes. These remedies must be exhausted before any deprivation or demolition is carried out (!) (!) .

In summary, the document emphasizes that actions concerning property rights, including sealing or demolition, must be within the powers conferred by law, follow due process, and respect constitutional protections. The Monitoring Committee's actions outside these boundaries are deemed illegal and are liable to be quashed.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MISHRA, J.

IN RE: ISSUE RELATING TO JURISDICTION OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE

1. We are dealing with the authority of the “Monitoring Committee to seal the residential premises on the private land” particularly when they are not being used for the “commercial purpose”. Whether the Monitoring Committee could have sealed these residential premises is the only question which we are examining in this order.

2. Report No.149 dated 2.4.2019 submitted by the Monitoring Committee concerning specific unauthorized constructions allegedly carried out in the Vasant Kunj and Rajokari area. These constructions were not on public land. The respective persons owned the land, and the Committee had submitted that a letter was received from the SDM, Mehrauli on 22.2.2019 regarding unauthorized construction in Vasant Kunj, Delhi.

3. A reply was filed on behalf of the residents that various residential premises were sealed where constructions were made long back. There was no authority with the Monitoring Committee to seal purely residential premises. It was pointed out that their structure was in consonance with the Master Plan (MPD2021) within Low Density Residential Area (LDRA) modified vide Notification No.S.O.1199 (E) dated 10.5.2013 and Notification No.S.O.1744 (E) dated 18.6.2013. Reliance was placed on the various bylaws/statutory provisions. It was submitted that the Monitoring Committee was not authorized to take action, and the residential premises should be desealed. It was also pointed out that compounding has been made in some cases. The structure should not be demolished, given the provisions of the applicable acts, bylaws, and policy. It has to be regularized for which prayer was pending before concerned authorities.

4. It was further contended that it is a residential area, farmhouses were notified as LowDensity Residential Areas, and the premises were used as residential premises. They are in accord with MPD2021. “Mehrauli” is an urbanized village. The Monitoring Committee was not empowered to seal the premises used for residential purposes. It was permissible to raise the construction for the use of a residence as provided under Clause 4.4.3 G of MPD2021. Reliance has also been placed on NDRA Policy.

5. We have heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy and Shri A.D.N. Rao, learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Rakesh Khanna, Shri Siddharth Luthra, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri R.C. Mishra, Shri Nalin Kohli, Shri Wasim A. Qadri, Shri Sanjiv Sen, learned senior counsel, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Addl. Solicitor General, Shri D.N. Goburdhan, Shri Naveen Kumar, Ms. Karuna Nundy, learned counsel and other learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae with his usual vigour urged that Writ Petition (C) No.4677 of 1985 was filed in this Court regarding environment in Delhi, shifting of heavy industries, noxious industries, stopping of all mining in Aravali hills in and around Delhi including demolition of colonies built on forest land, misuse of premises (misuse includes unauthorized construction), i.e., construction without sanction, lack of civic amenities and the need for their upgradation, etc. This Court appointed the Monitoring Committee in the year 2006. Various orders have been referred to submit that the Monitoring Committee is entitled to inspect premises in which any illegal construction has been made. This Court restored its power on 6.12.2017. A Special Task Force was set up to ensure that the order of the court and applicable bylaws were implemented. LDRA Policy in derogation of the MPD2021 is notified on 7.2.2007.

7. Learned Amicus attracted the attention of this Court to orders dated 24.4.2018, 8.5.2018, 15.5.2018, 18.5.2018, 24.5.2018, and various other orders and certain reports, which we will refer later. He has pointed out that the Special Task Force was constituted on 25.4.2018. The Monitoring Committee has the power to seal unauthoriz

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

gpt-4

2020 Supreme(SC) 487

Cases Referred (22)

Judicial Analysis