The main legal point established in the judgment is that construction in Nimri Colony is subject to specific limitations and regulations outlined in the policy formulated by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and any construction exceeding the prescribed limits is liable for demolition.

Vipin Sanghi, J. (Open Court):--

1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015 passed by the first appellate court, namely, the SCJ-cum-RC(N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi, in RCA No. 3/14, whereby the said first appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, namely, the learned Civil Judge-XII, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Suit No. 273/14 has been affirmed.

2. The original suit had been preferred by respondent No. 1 – Vinod Srivastava to seek several reliefs, including, the relief that the unauthorized construction put up by the appellants above the ground floor i.e. up to third floor be directed to be removed. A direction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi-respondent No. 5 was sought that they remove the unauthorised constructed being raised by defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The trial court decreed the suit and the first appellate court has upheld the said decree.

3. It is not in dispute that in respect of Nimri Colony, where the suit property is situated, Municipal Corporation of Delhi formulated a policy vide resolution No. 386 dated 25.09.2000. Under this policy, the layout plan of the colony was revised with each flat was permitted a coverage of 100 sq. Meters on a plot area of 135 sq. Meters. On the ground floor, the coverage was envisaged by extension of depth of the plot by 8’ in front and by 22’ in the rear of the existing flats. The ground floor flat owners and the second floor/upper flat owners were permitted the same covered area i.e. 100 sq. Meters each. It was clearly stated that any construction beyond 100 sq. Meters shall have to be demolished/cleared by the flat owners failing which the MCD shall take action under the law.

4. In clause (viii) of the resolution, it was clarified that while the ground floor flat owner is allowed to construct in the rear court yard, he will confine his part of the covered area only in the ground floor. On the first floor, no construction could be raised on the rear side. The terrace rights over the newly constructed area on the ground floor upto depth of 22’ were to remain with the ground floor owner. So far as the first floor/upper floor flat owner was concerned, they were permitted to use and exhaust the ground coverage of 100 sq meters by raising construction on the front area (upto 8’) and by raising construction on the second floor. This is clear from clause (ix) of the said resolution.

5. A perusal of the Scheme shows that the charges to be levied for permitting such additional construction were set out in Clause (xi) of the said Scheme.

6. From the judgment of the trial court, it appears that the appellant had raised construction not only on the first floor but also on the second floor and even on the third floor. The construction on the third floor was not permitted at all. Consequently, the trial court decreed the suit thereby directing defendant No. 5, namely, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, to demolish the construction on the second floor and third floor above flat No. 182, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, as per site plan Mark A. Further injuncting relief was also decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The first appeal preferred by the appellant met the same fate.

7. The submission of Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the appellant had been required to deposit, and has deposited Rs. 2,30,663/- on 21.01.2008, and by deposit of the said amount, the entire existing construction stood regularised. He further submits that even as per the status report filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi before the trial court, the construction was found only up to second floor and there was no third floor found to be in existence. Mr. Singhal further submits that on a reading of the policy contained in Resolution No. 386 of the Municipal Corporation, dated 25.09.2000, 100 sq. Meters area could be covered both on the second floor and third floor independ