JUDGMENT

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.:

1. The present Appeal has been filed assailing the validity of the Judgment dated 31.08.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”] whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants.

2. The challenge briefly arises in respect of the Right of Way [hereinafter referred to as “ROW”] and its measurement in respect of a portion of the Outer Ring Road which forms part of Kalkaji Colony in the vicinity of Nehru Place, New Delhi.

3. The Appellants are residents of Kalkaji and owners of plot no. CC-

23, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, who made various representations with respect to illegal constructions made by their neighbour, i.e., Respondent No. 3 who resides at Plot No. CC-24, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 [hereinafter referred to as “said property”].

4. The Appellant's had initially filed a Petition before the learned Single Judge seeking quashing of the building plan as sanctioned by the Respondent No. 2/MCD as well as in respect of other approvals granted to Respondent No. 3 with respect to said property. By the impugned judgment, this challenge was repelled by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the Appellants have filed this Appeal.

5. It is the contention of the Appellants that the construction of a hotel/guest house on the said property has been carried out by Respondent No. 3 in violation of the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 [hereinafter referred to as “Master Plan”], Zonal Development Plans as appearing in the Master Plan as well as the Unified Building Bye Laws for Delhi, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as “Building Bye Laws”] and the sanctioned building plan.

5.1 The Respondent No. 1 had granted permission to Respondent No. 3 for running of a guest house by its letter dated 07.01.2008 subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein and upon payment of mixed use charges which, admittedly, have been paid.

6. Mr Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate who appears on behalf of the Appellants has made the following submissions:

(i) The road abutting the property of the Appellants is a 9 meter wide service road which is separated from the Outer Ring Road by a wall of about 7 feet in height and that the Outer Ring Road is at a much higher level than the service road. Photographic evidence of the same was handed over during submissions.

(ii) In terms of Master Plan and the guidelines for Mixed Land Use thereunder, certain activities are permitted which can be exercised in a residential colony, based on Mixed Use Regulations which forms part of Para 15.0 of Master Plan. Since the said property is in a colony named Kalkaji, which falls into category ‘C’ as per the Master Plan, the mixed use [residential and commercial use], guest houses and Banks are permitted to operate subject to certain conditions, which include a minimum ROW.

(iii) Reliance was placed upon the following extract of Master Plan in this regard to submit that since Kalkaji is a ‘Rehabilitation’ colony, 13.5 meter ROW is requisite:

“15.7 OTHER ACTIVITY

15.7.1 Subject to the general conditions given in para 15.4 and additional conditions given in para 15.7.3, the following public and semi public activities shall also be permitted in the residential plots abutting roads of minimum ROW prescribed in 15.7.2, whether or not the road is notified as mixed use street:

……

c. Guest house (including lodging houses) irrespective of number of rooms.

……

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 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 6m ROW).”

(iv) It is the submission of the Appellants that as per Respondent No.1 the road abutting the App