The decision of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to re-validate its plan is subject to the outcome of proceedings in the civil suit.

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J., (Open Court)- This writ petition has been filed by the Punjab National Bank (Bank) challenging the letters dated 16.11.2005 (page 64) and 18.7.2006 (page 66) issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). By the first mentioned letter dated 16.11.2005, the MCD rejected the request of the petitioner for revalidation of the building plans due to noncompliance of objections contained in the notice dated 16.9.2005. By the second mentioned letter dated 18.7.2006, the MCD directed the petitioner to "stop the construction work immediately till your extension is awarded."

2. The petitioner-bank purchased plot Nos. 40 and 41, Hathi Khana Scheme, Bara Hindu Rao Road, Pul Bangesh, Delhi from Shri Abdul Ghaffar and Shri Abdul Sattar through registered sale deeds dated 31.3.1963 and 9.10.1965. The mutation was carried out in the name of the petitioner-bank by the MCD vide letter dated 8.7.1985. The site plan was sanctioned by the MCD vide letter dated 2.9.1999 and construction work of the said plots commenced on 5.9.2001.

3. It appears that the legal heirs of the previous owners Sh. Iqbal Ahmed and Smt. Samima Yonus filed a Civil Suit No. 323 of 2001 (Iqbal Ahmed & Anr. v. DDA) against the petitioner-bank in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Delhi seeking permanent and mandatory injunction. By an order dated 21.11.2001, learned Civil Judge allowed the application for interim injunction and restrained the petitioner-Bank from raising any construction in the said plots. An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi on 2.9.2002. However, by an order dated 7.11.2003 passed in CM (Main) No 672 of 2002, this Court set aside the order dated 2.9.2002 of the learned ADJ and dismissed the application for interim injunction. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7304 of 2004 against the said order dated 7.11.2003 of this Court was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 30.4.2004. The MCD was a party to the said suit in which the aforementioned order was passed by this Court and by the Honble Supreme Court.

4. The petitioner-Bank then applied to MCD for revalidation of the building plan already sanctioned. On 8.11.2004, the MCD considered the request of the petitioner and revalidated the plan upto 1.9.2005. On the strength of this extension, the petitioner-Bank recommenced construction which was stated to have been near completion some time in September, 2005.

5. The petitioner applied to the MCD on 14.9.2005 for a further revalidation of the plan. By a letter dated 16.9.2005 the MCD asked the petitioner to comply with five different requirements one of which pertained to furnishing information on the "latest position of the Court case". The petitioner replied to this letter dated 16.9.2005 and 10.11.2005 furnishing the necessary information and also giving details of Court cases.

6. It appears that the letter dated 10.11.2005 was delivered to the MCD only on 14.12.2005 by which time the impugned letter dated 16.11.2005 had been issued. Therefore, no fault can be found to the MCD in issuing the impugned letter dated 16.11.2005 because till then it did not receive the petitioners reply dated 10.11.2005. However the second impugned letter dated 18.7.2006 does not refer to the reply dated 10.11.2005 received by MCD and reiterates that the request for extension of time was not accepted due to technical reasons.

7. Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that there is no justification whatsoever in the MCD rejecting the application of the petitioner for further revalidation of the sanctioned building plan. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajeshwar Parshad v. Municipal Corporation o/Delhi, 39 (1989) DLT 212=AIR 1991 Delhi 71. He submits that this Court could clarify that the decision of the MCD to re-validate its plan would be subject to the outcome of proceedings in the civil suit.

8. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, lea