SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Del) 892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Rattan Lal Aggarwal - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C) 12942/2009
Decided On : 07-04-2011

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocates for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Anurag Ranjan & Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocates for the Respondent No. 4.

Headnote:

Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 - Clauses 15.7.2 & 15.3.2 – Permitting conditions and activities permissible according to the plan – Mixed use permissible – Extent – Master plan is statutory and the provisions of the said master plan have statutory force – Even the Doctrine of estoppel will not come to rescue – Petition dismissed.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The petition impugns the letter dated 22nd January, 2008 of the respondent MCD directing the respondent No. 3 Mr. Dinesh Chhabra, being the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner qua ground floor and rear portion of the basement of property No. C-1, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi to have the respondent No. 4 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (KMBL) to stop its functioning from the said premises within 7 days; the petition also seeks directions for permitting use of the said premises for banking purposes.

2. Clauses 15.7.2 and 15.3.2 of the Master Plan for Delhi 2021 read as under:

"15.7.2. The minimum ROW of a street or stretch of road on which the above-mentioned other activities are permissible is as follows:-

In A & B Colonies : 18m ROW in regular plotted development. Notes Banks and fitness centres shall however, not be permissible, except those already operating as on 07.09.2006.

In C & D Colonies : 18 m ROW in regular residential plotted development, 13.5m ROW in rehabilitation colonies and 9m ROW in regularized-unauthorized colonies, resettlement colonies, Walled City, special area and urban villages; and in pedestrian shopping streets (of less than 6 m ROW)

In E, F & G Colonies : 13.5 m ROW in regular plotted development, 9m ROW in rehabilitation colonies and 6m ROW in Walled City, regularized-unauthorized colonies, resettlement colonies, Special areas, and urban villages and in pedestrian shopping streets (of less than 6m ROW). 15.3.2. The extent of mixed use permissible in various categories of colonies is further clarified as follows: 1. In colonies falling in categories A and B

x x x x

"Other activity" restricted to guest houses, nursing homes and pre-primary schools, as defined in para 15.7.1, subject to conditions contained in para 15.7, in plots abutting roads of minimum 18m ROW in regular plotted development, since these activities are in the nature of 'Public and Semi-Public' facilities. New Banks and Fitness Centres will not be permissible. Banks and Fitness Centres, which already exist, in accordance with notifications issued in this regard from time to time, and are on plots abutting roads of minimum 18m ROW, on the date of notification, shall, however continue.

x x x x x x

Note : Commercial activity on mixed use streets, within A & B category colonies, earlier notified under MPD-2001 shall cease with immediate effect (other than in plots abutting Master Plan roads)."

3. It is not in dispute that the colony of Panchsheel Enclave falls in category A and B colonies and the ROW of the street or stretch of road on which the property No. C-1, Panchsheel Enclave is situated is less than 18 meters. The Banking activity as claimed in the petition would thus be not permissible unless "already operating as on 7th September, 2006" within the meaning of Clause 15.7.2 supra.

4. The case of the petitioner in this regard is that the then owner of the said premises had on 27th September, 2004 applied to the respondent MCD for permission for opening a Bank branch in the said premises and the respondent MCD vide its letter dated 15th October, 2004 had granted such permission on the terms and conditions contained in the said letter; that the then owner of the premises had vide registered lease deed dated 4th August, 2006 let out the said premises to Euronet Service India Pvt. Ltd. for a period of five years w.e.f. 24th January, 2006 for the purposes of setting up a Bank and with right to sublet the said premises to M/s ING Vysya Bank Ltd; that the said tenant however vacated the premises on 9th November, 2006; that the then owner of the premises thereafter negotiated to let out the said premises to respondent No. 4 KMBL; that the respondent No. 4 KMBL vide its letter dated 24th April, 2007 to the respondent MCD asked for clarification whether it could open and run its "new bank branch from the said premises"; that the MCD vide its letter dated 24th April, 2007 itself clarified that it had no objection "in continuing wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top