Summary
The municipal corporation could not refuse building plans for rebuilding a dilapidated residential house on a notified mixed-use street in Darya Ganj on the ground that the ground floor had to be commercial; mixed-use regulations and the 27.05.2009 circular let the owner choose fully residential use. The corporation's appeal was dismissed, a time-bound sanction was directed and costs of Rs.10 lakh were imposed for harassment.
Issues
- Whether an owner of an old residential house on a notified mixed-use street can be compelled, when rebuilding, to use the ground floor for commercial purposes.
- Whether the High Court erred in upholding the deemed sanction of the respondents' residential building plans.
Provisions considered
- Clauses 1, 4 and 5, Circular dated 27.05.2009 (guidelines for building plans on notified streets under mixed-use regulations, MPD-2021)Clause 1 allows plans on notified commercial streets to be sanctioned for commercial, partly commercial or fully residential use at the applicant's choice; the Court read this as confirming that owners cannot be compelled to convert the ground floor to commercial use. (¶ 11)
- Clauses 15.1 and 15.2, Notification dated 15.09.2006, Urban Development Department, Government of NCT of DelhiRelied on by the respondents as an enabling mixed-use provision; the Court held that the notification did not support the corporation's insistence on commercial use. (¶¶ 6, 7, 14)
- Section 347A, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957Referred to only as the provision constituting the Appellate Tribunal-MCD, which granted deemed sanction of the plans. (¶ 2)
Held
- Mixed-use provisions for notified streets are enabling: the owner of residential property on such a street may choose to develop part of it commercially on payment of conversion charges, but cannot be compelled to do so; plans may be sanctioned for fully residential use at the applicant's choice. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- The corporation's position that the owners could keep living in the dilapidated house but must make the ground floor commercial if they rebuilt was illogical and found no support in the notification relied on. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The corporation should have been concerned with the safety of the occupants of a house liable to collapse rather than objecting to the plans; its conduct over some 15 years of litigation amounted to harassment, justifying exemplary costs. (¶¶ 15, 16, 20)
Result
Appeal dismissed. Respondents permitted to submit fresh plans for a residential house (or the same plans earlier upheld), to be sanctioned within four weeks of presentation. Costs of Rs.10,00,000 imposed on the appellant, payable to the respondents by 17.12.2025 and to be reported to the Court. Connected Civil Appeal No. 6078 of 2018 disposed of.