The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the notification exempting rural areas from building bye-laws and provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

( 1 ) THE controversy in this petition sine, , the remand of thecase by the Supreme Court by its order dated 23/03/1987, stands verymuch narrowed down. The whole dispute upto the date of the remand of thecase by the Supreme Court was whether khasi-a No. 352/2 Min. and part ofkhasra Nos. 563 and 564 situated in village Bijwasan are or are not locatedwithin the village extended Abadi (firni ). The case of the respondent Dalmiadairy Industries Ltd. , the alleged builders, was that the aforesaid khasranumbers are located within the village extended abadi and, therefore, areexempted from the building bye-laws and provisions of sections 332 to 336,section 342 and section 347 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the said Act ). The above exemption was claimed underthe notification dated 24/08/1963 made effective from 19/11/1959 (annexure P-5atpage64 of the paper book ). By means of the saidnotification the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by virtue of the powersconferred on it by sub-claused) of clause (b) of section 507 of the said Acthad exempted the rural areas from the provisions of the said Act mentionedin column 2 of the schedule given in the said notification to the extent givenin column 4 of the said schedule. The schedule to the said notification which relevant to the case of the respondent reads as under :

SCHEDULESI. No. Sections Brief Description Extent 2. 332,333, Building Only such portion of the rural334, 335, regulations areas as lie within the village336, 342 abadis as defined in the revenueand 347. records Firni : Provided that the exemption shall not apply to factories, warehouses, cold________ storages, and slaughter houses. "

( 2 ) THE controversy right upto the decision of the Supreme Courtbetween the parties was whether the plots in question fall within the villageabadis.

( 3 ) THE respondent company had in December 1983 started constructingresidential as well as commercial flats on the above plots. On 20/03/1985 the Municipal Corporation required the respondent to produce documents including a certificate of lal Dora duly signed by the area Subdivisional Magistrate. A correspondence ensued between the parties. Thecontention of the respondent before the authority was that the khasra numbersin dispute fall within the Firni and was, therefore, exempted from the buildingregulations. On 29/07/1985 the Municipal Corporation passed an orderholding that the land in dispute is not exempt from building regulations and,accordingly, required the respondent to demolish the construction. Therespondent filed an appeal to the District Judge against the order of demolition dated 29/07/1985. The appeal was heard by an Additional Districtand Sessions Judge, Delhi, and he by his order dated 27/05/1986 heldthat the points in dispute fall within the extended la] Dora and, therefore,are exempt from the provisions of sections 332 to 336 and section 342 andsection 347 of the said Act. The Additional District Judge allowed theappeal and quashed the order of the authority dated 29/07/1985.

( 4 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order the Municipal Corporation of Delhi filedthe present writ petition. On 6/10/1986 a bench of this court (R. N. Aggarwal and C. L. Chaudhry, JJ) after hearing Shri Bhandare, learnedadvocate, found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.

( 5 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order the petitioner went to the Supreme Courtby way of Special Leave Petition and the Hon ble Supreme Court by theirorder dated 23/03/1987 for the reason that ths order of the High Courtdoes not contain the reasons in support of its decision set aside the order ofthe High Court and remanded the writ petition to the High Court with arequest that the petition be decided within three weeks.

( 6 ) AFTER the aforesaid other the petition came up before us on 3/04/1987. In the meantime another writ petition was filed by the respondentdalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. (writ petition No. 922 of 1987) against