The main legal point established in the judgment is that lay-out plans can be altered without following a prescribed procedure, and the legitimate expectation of plan revisions.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. As would be evident from the facts noted hereinafter since much content of the arguments advanced during hearing of the appeal was in the realm of theory, we would be constrained to note the pleadings of the appellants in the writ petition so that we can clearly bring out that much what was sought to be argued in appeal is in the realm of theory. It is trite that Courts have to decide issues which are exoteric and not esoteric.

2. The petitioner challenged the action of the then Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority of sub dividing plot bearing Municipal No.C-32, Friends Colony East, New Delhi ad-measuring 800 square yards into two plots bearing No.C-32A and C-32B, each ad-measuring 400 square yards. As per the appellants this sub-division impacted the rights of the appellants because the mandatory set-backs hithertofore required to be observed by the owners of the two sub-divided plots got changed. The appellants being the owners of the adjoining building : C-31 were alleged to be thus adversely affected. The appellants pleaded that the Municipal Regulations and Bye-laws do not permit sub-division of plots as per a notification dated September 22, 2006 being No.SO1591 (E) issued by the Ministry of Urban Development which inter-alia reads as under:-

“Terms and Conditions:

…… (iii) Sub-division of plots is not permitted. However, if there are more than one buildings in one residential plot, the sum of the built up area and ground coverage of all such buildings, shall not exceed the built up area and ground coverage permissible in that plot.”

……

(viii) The minimum set-backs shall be as given in the following table unless otherwise prescribed:

S.No

Plot Size (in Sqm)

Front

Rear) Side(1) Side(2)

1. Below 100 0 0 0 0

2. Above 100 and upto 250 3 0 0 0

3. Above 250 and upto 500 3 3 3 0

4. Above 500 and upto 2000 6 3 3 3

5. Above 2000 and upto 10000 9 6 6 6

6. Above 10000 15 9 9 9

(a) In case the permissible coverage is not achieved with the above – mentioned set-backs in a plot, the set-backs of the preceding category may be allowed.

(b) In case of construction in the future, a minimum 2m open courtyard shall be provided for in the residential plots of area of 50 sqm to 100 sqm.”

3. It was pleaded that in the sanctioned lay-out plan of the colony the 800 square yard plots were thus not liable to be sub-divided. It was pleaded that the sub-division had adversely affected the mandatory setbacks. Alternatively it was pleaded that if sub-division had to be allowed, the FAR had to be retained as per the original plot size and further that the mandatory set-backs had to be as per the original plot size.

4. Relevant would it be to highlight that in the writ petition it was never pleaded that when the Zonal Development Plans were prepared, the lay-out plan of the colony became an integral part of the Zonal Development Plan and thus unless the Zonal Development Plan was amended as per the procedure prescribed under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the lay-out plan could not be amended. It was never pleaded that the Zonal Development Plan of the area had itself divided the sites into plots and had stipulated therein conditions and restrictions as regards to open spaces to be maintained while erecting building. It was not pleaded that the Zonal Development Plan had provided for alignment of buildings on the side. We are highlighting as hereinabove because much was sought to be argued in the appeal with reference to Section 8 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

5. A perusal of the perfunctorily drafted writ petition would reveal that the thrust thereof is only in one direction: that the lay-out plan could not be altered without amending the Zonal Development Plan. The learned Single Judge has opined to the contrary.

6. As regards the notification dated September 22, 2006 the learned Single Judge has noted that if there were more than one buildings on a residential plots the notification i