IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
G. ROHINI And RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, JJ.
VIKAS SINGH - Petitioner
Versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND ORS – Respondents
W.P.(C) 1476/2014
Decided on : 20.01.2016.
Rule 27(2) - Building Height - Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010 - Rule 27(2) of the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010 was challenged for being inconsistent with the amendment to the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD)-2021. The court discussed the provisions of the Delhi Building Bye-Laws 1983, the Notification of the Ministry of Urban Development, and the Delhi Fire Service Act, 2007. The court considered the implications of the amendments to the Master Plan and the Building Bye-Laws on the classification of residential buildings and the fire safety measures. The court emphasized the importance of public safety and the right to life in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged Rule 27(2) of the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010, seeking approval for the revised plan of construction of a house in Defence Colony, New Delhi. The petitioner argued that the rule was not in line with the amendment to the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD)-2021, which increased the maximum height for residential buildings with stilt parking to 17.5 meters.
Finding of the Court:
The court found an inconsistency between the Master Plan and the Building Bye-Laws on building height. Despite acknowledging the inconsistency, the court dismissed the petition, prioritizing public safety and the right to life over the legal inconsistencies. The court also allowed the petitioner to apply for regularisation of the construction, subject to fire safety measures.
Issues: The main issue was the inconsistency between Rule 27(2) of the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010 and the amendment to the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD)-2021 regarding the maximum height of residential buildings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle of public safety and the right to life, emphasizing the need for fire safety measures in residential buildings, despite legal inconsistencies.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was allowed to apply for regularisation of the construction, subject to fire safety measures.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. On 29th September, 2014, after completion of pleadings and finally hearing the counsels for the then parties, we passed the following order in this petition:
“1. This petition is filed impugning Rule 27(2) of the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010 on the ground of the same being not in consonance with the amendment vide Notification dated 23rd September, 2013 of the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD)-2021. The petition consequently seeks a direction to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) impleaded as respondent No.5, to approve the revised plan of construction of house No.C-319, Defence Colony, New Delhi of the petitioner.
2. The petition came up first before this Court on 7th March, 2014 when the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) and Director, Delhi Fire Service (DFS), GNCTD appearing on advance notice was directed to file an affidavit indicating the position with regard to fire safety clearance of buildings up to 15 metres in height and beyond 15 metres in height. It was further directed that the said affidavit shall also indicate, as to whether there is need for changing the cap of 15 metres as stipulated in Rule 27(2) supra, on account of change in the Master Plan whereby the maximum height for residential buildings with stilt parking has been increased to 17.5 metres from the erstwhile limit of 15 metres.
3. In compliance therewith, an affidavit dated 4th April, 2014 of the Chief Fire Officer, DFS, New Delhi has been filed.
4. We have heard the senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3.
5. Having heard the writ petition finally, CM No.3085/2014 filed therewith for interim relief has become in fructuous and is disposed of.
6. The senior counsel for the petitioner:
(a) has drawn our attention to Delhi Building Bye-Laws 1983,
(i) Bye-law 2.1 whereof defines “Act” as the Delhi Development Act, 1957;
(ii) Bye-law 2.51 whereof defines “Master Plan” as the Master Plan for Delhi approved by the Central Government under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and the amendments made from time to time;
(iii) Bye-law 2.02 whereof provides that the words and expressions not defined in the Bye-laws shall have the same meaning or sense as in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, Delhi Development Act and the Master Plan for Delhi;
(iv) Bye-law 2.03 whereof provides that all mandatory Master Plan/Zonal Plan regulations regarding coverage, floor area ratio, use, set-backs, open spaces, height, number of storeys, number of dwelling units, parking standards etc. for various categories of buildings including modifications thereof made from time to time shall be applicable mutatis mutandis in the building regulations and that all amendments / modifications made in the building regulations will automatically be included as part of the Bye-laws;
(v) Bye-law 2.36 whereof defines “Floor Area Ratio (FAR)” as the quotient obtained by dividing the total covered area (plinth area) on all floors multiplied by 100 by the area of the plot;
(vi) Bye-law 2.58 whereof defines “Parking Space” as an area enclosed or unenclosed, covered or open, sufficient in size to park vehicles, together with a driveway connecting the parking space with a street or alley and permitting ingress and egress of the vehicles;
(vii) Bye-law 3.1 whereof provides that in addition to the provision of the Delhi Development Act, the Building Bye-laws shall apply to the building regulation activity, in the Union Territory of Delhi under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA);
(viii) Appendix J whereof containing ‘Relevant Extracts from MPD-2021 regarding Development Control Regulations’ provides the maximum height of constructions of residential plotted development, of 15 metres and further provides that if the building is constructed with stilt area of non-habitable height (less than 2.4 metres), used for parking, such stilt area
Delhi Bar Association (Regd.) Vs. Union of India
Delhi High Court Bar Association v. GNCTD
Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Taherakhatoon Vs. Salambin Mohammad
Usman Gani J. Khatri of Bombay Vs. Cantonment Board
State of West Bengal Vs. Terra Firma Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd.
Howrah Municipal Corpn. Vs. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd.
Friends Colony Development Committee Vs. State of Orissa
Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla Vs. Prem Lata Sood
Dr. B.L. Wadhera Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Commissioner Vs. Holistic Farms Pvt. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.