J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by Mrs. Asha Gupta and Mr. Jayanta Ghoshal (collectively referred to as the “Petitioners”) who are the owners-in-possession of the First Floor; and Second Floor forming a part of an immovable property situated at Plot No.108, Pocket 40, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi 110019 (the “Identified Property”) and have filed this present writ petition aggrieved on account of re-development of an adjacent property i.e., an immovable property bearing No. 119 situated at Pocket 40, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi 110019 (the “Subject Property”) wherein Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 i.e., the joint owners of the Subject Property have demolished the original superstructure on the Subject Property and have commenced construction de novo on the Subject Property(the “Writ Petition”).

2. The brief facts leading to the filling of this Writ Petition are that the Delhi Development Authority (the “DDA”) developed Pocket 40, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi (the “Identified Land”) by way of plotting the Identified Land for the purpose of a planned residential colony by carving out plots admeasuring approximately 135.45 Sq. Meters, each. The Identified Property situated on the Identified Land was allotted jointly to Mr. Deepak Kumar and Ms. Purabi Ray vide a lease deed dated 15.10.1990 (the “Original Allotees”). Pertinently, requisite sanction was accorded on 26.12.2000to the construction site plan by the erstwhile South Delhi Municipal Corporation (“SDMC” or “Respondent No. 1”) (now merged as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the “MCD”)) for the construction of Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor over the Identified Property keeping in view the Master Plan for Delhi, 2001 (“MPD 2001”) and other laws applicable at the relevant point of time.

3. Thereafter, vide a sale deed dated 22.04.2004, Petitioner No.2 purchased the First Floor forming a part of the Identified Property from one Mr. Bibash Nag Chowdhari who had in turn purchased the same from the Original Allotees. Additionally, vide a sale deed dated 11.10.2010, Petitioner No.1 purchased the Second Floor forming a part of the Identified Property from one Ms. Beli Banik who had in turn purchased the same from the Original Allotees. The Petitioners are admittedly, second purchasers of their respective floors forming a part of the Identified Property.

4. It is stated that on 1.20.2021, the Petitioners‟ noticed that building pillars were being erected near the rear boundary wall of the Subject Property i.e., the common wall between the Identified Property and the Subject Property without provisioning for any setback/gap/space from the setback line of the rear façade of the superstructure to the outer-boundary wall (“Rear Setback”). Thus, the Petitioners‟ requested Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to abstain from constructing over the entire Subject Property and provision for a Rear Setback that extended 3 (three) meters which according to the Petitioners‟ was mandatory under inter alia the Master Plan for Delhi, 2001 (“MPD 2001”). However, Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 informed the Petitioners that the construction was being carried out as per a construction plan that had been accorded sanction by the SDMC / MCD under the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021notified on 07.02.2007(the “MPD 2021”) where under, plots admeasuring up to 250 Sq. Meters are not mandated to provision for any Rear Setback.

5. The Petitioners‟ have further stated that they (i) approached the local police and made oral complaints; and (ii) made a written complaint to certain identified officers of the SDMC / MCD; and (iii) served a legal notice to the SDMC / MCD through legal counsel threatening the initiation of legal proceedings. However, the aforementioned actions taken by the Petitioners resulted in no action being taken against Respondent Nos. 4 and

5 and / or the construction carried out on the Subject Property.

6. Accordingly, the Petitioners filed this present writ pet