Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset seeks to withdraw the request made on 22nd January, 2010 for adjournment of the present writ petition sine die to enable the petitioner to approach the respondent MCD for rectifications/modifications of the layout plan of the year 1964. It is contended that there is no need for the same.

2. The counsels have been heard.

3. The petition seeks direction to the respondent MCD to release/issue the plan for property No. C-8/3, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi submitted by the petitioner for sanction. The petition also seeks setting aside of all orders/actions of the respondent MCD objecting to the sanction of the said plan.

4. The petitioner claims to be the owner of plot No. C-8/3 ad-measuring 577.5 sq. yds. in the colony of Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. The petitioner further claims to have in or about the year 1963 raised construction of a single storied house on the said plot of land. The petitioner on 20th November, 1992 submitted to the respondent MCD a building plan for erection of first and second floors in the property. This plan was rejected by the Building Plan Committee of the respondent MCD inter alia on the ground that building activity was not permitted on the said plot as per the report of the Town Planner. Aggrieved therefrom the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, MCD which was disposed of vide order dated 16th December, 1993.

5. The Appellate Tribunal in the order aforesaid recorded the contention of the respondent MCD that the building plan filed by the petitioner could not be sanctioned as the plot in question was on the land which had been earmarked as 'reserved' and building activity whereon was not permissible. After going through the layout plan of the colony of Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi and the other documents, the Appellate Tribunal found that though the portion of the land (described in the order as Rectangular land) in which the plot of the petitioner was, was shown as 'reserved' land for unspecified purpose in the layout plan but the same was divided into five plots bearing No. C-8/1 to C-8/5. It was found that construction of single to 2 1/2 storeys existed on the said plots and the said construction had been raised after the plans therefor had been sanctioned by the respondent MCD. Though the documents regarding sanction plot No. C-8/3 were not available but the file relating to sanction of Sanitary Plan on the said plot was available and wherefrom the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the construction of a single storied structure on plot No. C-8/3 of the petitioner had also been with the due sanction of the respondent MCD. The Appellate Tribunal also recorded that the respondent MCD had prepared a set back plan of the said colony in the year 1963 and in which set back plan the five plots aforesaid were demarcated on the rectangular land though shown in the set back plan also as 'reserved' land. The Appellate Tribunal thus concluded that the respondent MCD as far back as in 1963 had accepted the carving out of the five plots aforesaid on the 'reserved' land and had sanctioned the plans for construction thereon thereafter only. The Appellate Tribunal thus allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order of the respondent MCD rejecting the plans for construction of the first and second floors submitted by the petitioner and directed the respondent MCD to issue the sanction plan.

6. The respondent MCD preferred an appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal to the Administrator, Delhi. The Administrator recorded that the respondent MCD inspite of repeated opportunities had failed to explain as to how the building plan of the ground floor of the property was sanctioned and why construction was permitted on the other five plots if the land was classified as 'reserved' land. While dismissing the appeal the Commissioner, MCD was also directed to hold an inquiry as to the delay in complying with the order of th