*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

RESERVED ON: MARCH 28 , 2012

PRONOUNCED ON: APRIL 10, 2012

+

LPA 904/2010

A.R.BANERJEE

……..Appellant

Through: Mr.Anup Banerjee with

Md.Naved, Advocates.

versus

R.S.VERMA & OTHERS

.…..Respondents

Through: Mr.Anand Nandan, Adv. for R-1.

Mr.Arun Birbal, Adv. for DDA.

Mr.Gautam Awasthi, Adv. for

Indian Bank.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. The appellant, A.R.Banerjee has impugned the order

dated 16.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.(C) No.14090/2009 whereby six months‟ time was

granted to the appellant to obtain requisite permission for

using a part of the ground floor for banking purposes and the

basement for a coaching centre; needless to state the

permission had to be from the competent authority, which as

we were given to understand is the Municipal Corporation of

2012:DHC:2345-DB

Delhi. As per the order, on appellant‟s failure to do the

needful, the Competent Authority was given liberty to take

appropriate action as per law.

2. The directions have been issued on a writ petition filed

by the respondent who owns the second floor of the building

in question.

3. Relating back to the year 2001, we note that the

appellant the allottee of plot No.A-100, Chittaranjan Park,

New Delhi, ad-measuring 320 sq.yd., entered into a

collaboration

agreement

with

respondent

No.1

Sh.R.S.Verma, to develop said property. As per the

collaboration agreement, the building had to be constructed

by Sh.R.S.Verma from out of his own funds and the

basement and ground floor thereof were to be the property

of the appellant, the second floor was the property of

respondent No.1 and the first floor was to be sold and was

sold after the property was constructed.

4. Chittranjan Park is a re-settlement colony and as per

MPD-2021 is to be treated as a re-settlement colony. The

plots allotted to the allottees, as per perpetual sub-lease

deed executed requires a building to be constructed on the

plot allotted and used for a residential purpose. The

appellant is also under said obligation to do so.

5. There is a dispute between the parties i.e. the

appellant and respondent No.1 on the subject to excess

construction, beyond the sanction obtained and admittedly,

the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has yet to compound the

excess construction and there is not even finality on the

subject: Whether the entire unauthorized construction is

2012:DHC:2345-DB

compoundable or not?

6. The appellant leased out the basement permitting the

same to be used by the tenant as a coaching centre i.e.

respondent No.6 and the ground floor to Indian Bank,

respondent No.5.

7. Admittedly, no prior sanction has been obtained from

the Competent Authority i.e. the Municipal Corporation of

Delhi for the same.

8. The first respondent filed a writ petition seeking

mandamus against the statutory authorities to compel them

to prevent commercial activities being carried out as afore-

noted.

9. Inter-alia, it was informed by the Municipal Corporation

of Delhi that there is excess built up construction in the

entire house and till the same is got regularized, the

property cannot even be occupied. With respect to

commercial activities permissible on residential plots, it was

admitted that under MPD-2021, under the Mixed Land Use

Policy notified under MPD-2021 the same was contingent

upon obtaining a permission from the authorities concerned

and that no such permission was obtained from the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

10. The learned Single Judge, after considering the status

report and that commercial activities were being carried on

without required permission, observed in the impugned

order as under:-

“7. Unless the respondents no.4 & 5 satisfy all the

conditions subject to which such activities are

permitted, they cannot said to