Delhi District Court
Nitin Chalia And Anrs vs N.D.M.C on 1 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNW-01-003899-2019
MCD Appeal No. 2/19
1. Nitin Chalia
S/o Sh. R.K. Chalia
R/o A-3/14, Satyawati Nagar,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-III,
Delhi - 110052
2. Sheela Chalia
W/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o E-46, Satyawati Nagar,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-III,
Delhi - 110052 ...Appellants
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner
Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi ...Respondent
Date of Institution : 20.04.2019
Arguments heard on : 18.07.2024
Date of pronouncement : 01.08.2024
Appearance:
Sh. Surender Yadav, Adv. for the appellants.
Sh. Sanjay Sethi, Adv. for the respondent/North DMC.
JUDGMENT :
Jurisdiction of this court has been invoked u/s.347D of VIRENDER Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (in short Act) impugning order KUMAR BANSAL dated 20.03.2019 passed by the AT MCD whereby the appeal Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2024.08.05 Page 1 of 11 15:44:25 +0530 filed by the appellants herein challenging the order dated 07.04.2011 vide which the MCD has revoked the building plan sanctioned in favour of the appellants herein with respect to plot no. E-57, Satyawati Nagar, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, was dismissed.
2. Notice of the appeal was given to the MCD. Trial court record was also requisitioned. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellants, Ld. Counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that Satyawati Nagar is an old colony, situated in 27.08 acres of land forming part of Khasra Nos. 86 to 106 of Sadhora Kalan Village. The land was purchased by Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd. vide sale deed dated 03.05.1957 from the authorities and developed as Satyawati Nagar, a freehold colony. Its first layout plan was approved by MCD on 04.03.1959. In 1969, the colony was transferred to DDA as it fell in development area. Subsequently, revised layout plan of the colony was approved by the Chairman, DDA i.e. LG on 31.03.1973. In that plan, service personal area was carved out in Pocket C & E in place of plots earlier approved by the MCD on 04.03.1959. According to the layout plan approved by DDA, the 60 feet wide peripheral road was constructed alongwith Wazirpur boundary wall abutting to plots no. E-1 to E-13 and service personal area and the park after acquiring 26 bighas of land forming part of Khasra No. 646 & 648 vide award no. 1329A for development of residential area, Wazirpur, Phase-3.
Page 2 of 114. Later on the service personal area as approved on 31.10.1973 in Pocket C & E was converted into plotted area by DDA vide letter dated 31.01.1983. The colony was transferred back to MCD on 29.09.1989. Ld. Counsel submitted that now Satyawati Nagar is being monitored and managed by the MCD, DDA has nothing to do with it. The DDA constructed the road only abut to the service personal area. Service personal area never belonged to DDA. It was part of Satyawati Nagar as per the revised layout plan as well as the original plan. The plot no. E-57 is part of Satyawati Nagar as per the layout plan approved by DDA on 31.01.1983. Under the circumstances, there is no question of any encroachment of any land of DDA. Appellants herein submitted the building plan for approval with MCD and the MCD also approved the same in accordance with the bye- laws and after satisfaction with respect to the title of the plot vide letter dated 04.11.1988. In accordance with the approved building plan, the appellants herein started construction on the plot. In the meanwhile, DDA vide letter dated 20.11.2009 requested the MCD to cancel the building plan pertaining to plot no. E-57, Satyawati Nagar Colony, without any rhyme or reason. DDA has nothing to do with the plot. It is not forming part of Khasra No. 646 & 648 of Revenue Estate of Wazirpur. The plot in dispute falls in the Revenue Estate of Sadhora Kalan but DDA, without any verification, passed on this communication to MCD. The appellant also filed the Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition (C) 2942/2010 challenging the letter dated 20.11.2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2010 whereby the respondent herein was Page 3 of 11 directed to pass reasoned order considering the letter of the DDA. The proceedings were initiated by MCD in pursuance to the directions of the DDA. A committee was appointed. DDA failed to give any brief of their ownership or possession of the land. They have also failed to produce copy of any award vide which the said three bigha piece of land was ever acquired. DDA only provided the copy of Award no. 1329A dated 01.11.1969 vide which 26 bighas of land of Revenue Estate of Wazirpur was acquired for development of Wazirpur Residential Area whereas the plot in question falls in Revenue Estate of Sadhora Kalan. Even otherwise, in the layout plan of Satyawati Nagar colony, plot no. E-57 has already been approved by the Select Committee and the Town Planning Department of MCD. Considering all these facts, only the MCD approved the building plans.
5. Ld. Counsel submitted that now the order passed by the MCD to revoke the sanction is passed mechanically and arbitrarily without considering the reasons and the documents. Even according to the demarcation plan and field book of Khasra No. 648 of Revenue Estate of Wazirpur is duly covered within the boundary wall of DDA. Joint inspection report was also carried out. There also, it was found that the land is not forming part of Khasra No. 648 but is falling in the area of Khasra No. 103-104 of Sadhora Kalan on East side of the boundary wall. Ld. Counsel submitted that keeping in view these demarcation reports, the revenue records and also the records of DDA as well as MCD, it is clear that E-57 was never situated or part of Khasra No. 648 of Revenue Estate of Wazirpur.
Page 4 of 116. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgment cited as Sahebzada Mohammad Kamgarh Shah v. Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 953 wherein the court has observed as follows:
"The correctness of these principles is too well established by authorities to justify any detailed discussion. The task being to ascertain the intention of the parties, the cases have laid down that that intention has to be gathered by the words used by the parties themselves. In doing so the parties must be presumed to have used the words in their strict grammatical sense. If and when the parties have first expressed themselves in one way and then go on saying something, which is irreconcilable with what has gone before, the courts have evolved the principle on the theory that what once had been granted cannot next be taken away, that the clear disposition by an earlier clause will not be allowed to be out down by later clause. Where there is ambiguity it is the duty of the Court to look at all the parts of the document to ascertain what was really intended by the parties. But even here the rule has to be borne in mind that the document being the grantor's document it has to be interpreted strictly against him and in favour of the grantee."
7. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as Union of India v. Amarendra Nath Sarkara AIR 1967 Calcutta 119, wherein the Hone'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:
"24. Even if the words in the operative part be taken as of doubtful import, as argued by Mr. Sen the principle of law is that if a party giving a guarantee, leaves anything ambiguous in his expression, such ambiguity must be taken most strongly against him. It is also a familiar doctrine that where the words of instrument are ambiguous, the Court may call in aid. acts done under it as a clue to the intention. The best evidence of what was understood by the plaintiff to be the nature of the transaction is that afforded by his own representation dated April 17. 1953 Ext. D 11). Apart from the sundry statements paragraph 7 (h) and (c) thereof stated inler alia that al first the plaintiff refused "to sign the agreement in view of inequitable and repugnant clauses particularly about the collective responsibility of the Chief Cashier", but he had to sign it, after the detection of fraud, on the persuasion of the then F. A. & C. A. O. on a discussion Page 5 of 11 with whom he understood that it was a formal thing and should not be taken seriously. "In anv case I would not have accepted the appointment of Chief Cashier" stated the plaintiff, "had I been advised beforehand that the appointment was conditional on the execution of an agreement of such a character The plaintiff admitted in sub-paragraph (c) that the Chief Cashier was responsible for the omission and commission of all the staff under his control i.e., "he is liable to make good the loss of cash caused by any of them". The other evidence would be the plaintiff's own statement made in paragraph 10 of the plaint. Though he stated in paragraph 15 that the security bond had no retrospective effect, the plaintiff himself furnished a key to the meaning of words used as stated above."
8. Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of all these facts and the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the order of the AT MCD is not sustainable under law and prayed that the order be set aside and consequently the site plan earlier approved by the MCD be held to be the sanctioned plan of the plot.
9. Ld. Counsel for the MCD submitted that the appellants herein are claiming right in the property on the basis of the sale deed allegedly executed by Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd. but as the DDA has acquired the said property vide award no. 1329A i.e. the land of Khasra No. 648, situated within Revenue Estate of Wazirpur and is possessed by DDA, Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd. has no right, title or authority to transfer the said land in favour of the appellants. They cannot transfer a better title. Ld. Counsel submitted that vide this appeal, they want a declaration that they are the owners of the property, which is beyond the scope of the present appeal.
Page 6 of 1110. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the revised layout plan of Satyawati Nagar Colony was released in 1983 whereby the 11 residential plots including the plot in dispute were included in the service personal site by DDA, however, the same has been rejected after due deliberation by the MCD vide decision no. 3193 of Select Committee on 11.09.1995. Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the said rejection of the earlier layout plan, respondent vide letter dated 03.07.2014 addressed to the Chief Town Planner in North DMC clarified that revised layout plan of 1983 including E-Block i.e. five plots numbering E-53 to E-57 were erroneously approved on the basis of the information provided by Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd. In this letter itself, it has been mentioned that while approving the revised layout plan, it was not taken into consideration that these plots are on the government land belonging to DDA. Against this decision of MCD, Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd., from whom the appellants herein are claiming title, filed an appeal before the AT MCD bearing appeal no. 84/96, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2003. Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of this position, it is clear that Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd. through whom appellants are deriving their title is not having right, title and interest in that land and hence, the appellants also do not get any right in the plot in dispute.
11. Ld. Counsel submitted that Khasra No. 648 Min. situated within the Revenue Estate of Wazirpur was acquired vide award no. 1329A. In any case, there is no right, title of the appellants and in fact they have encroached upon the government Page 7 of 11 land. It is settled law that according to clause (e) of sub-section 2 of Section 336 of the Act, the Commissioner may revoke the building plan if that is done by encroachment of government land or on the land vested in the corporation. In this case also, the plot no. E-57 is on the government land and therefore, the orders of revocation of the building plan is in accordance with law. It is prayed that keeping in view all these facts, AT MCD has rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein. It is prayed that there is no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed.
12. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I find that in the present case the appellants claimed themselves to be the owners qua the property in dispute i.e. plot no. E-57, Satyawati Nagar Colony on the basis of sale deed dated 19.07.1982 executed by Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd. The claim is based upon the fact that the Vice Chairman, DDA, as a special case, has not insisted on service personal area, the purpose for which that area was initially kept in the layout plan of Satyawati Nagar. It is also alleged that the conversion of service personal area has been agreed to be released for plots on payment of deficiency charges amounting to Rs.87,725/- which has already been paid and the revised layout plan was approved by the Vice Chairman, DDA on 31.03.1982. The letter was written on 03.01.1983 to the Chairman, Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd. by the Deputy Director (DC) of DDA informing that the revised layout plan/set back-cum-demarcation plan for total plots of 295 has been examined in detail by the department and approved subject to the condition that earlier Page 8 of 11 vide this office letter of even number dated 01.02.1974 and released on 01.03.1974. It is important to note here that there is another communication dated 03.07.2014 signed by Deputy Director (Building) (Residential), DDA wrote to the Chief Town Planner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation communicating, as under:
"Sub: Regarding Part Revocation of 5 plots in E-Block in the Revised Layout Plan of Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Association Ltd. at Wazirpur (Satyawati Nagar Colony) Ref: Case title Ramkaur V/s DDA Petition No. 162/ATMCD/2012 Case File No. TC/LM(7479) 12/L. Next Date of Hearing on 17.07.14 In the above mentioned subject, I am directed to inform that earlier DDA had approved the revised layout plan way back on 31.01.1983. It has come to the notice recently that in the revised approved layout plan in E- Block, 5 plots numbering E-53 to E-57 was erroneously approved on the basis of information given to DDA by the Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd. While approving the revised layout plan, it was not taken into consideration at that time that these plots are on the government land belonging to DDA.
In view of above, it has been decided by the Competent Authority to revoke the part of revised layout plan with respect to these five plots of E-Block i.e. E-53 to E-57 falling on the land belonging to DDA which forms part of the revised approved layout plan approved on 31.01.1983.
You are, therefore, requested to note the same in your record and further action in the matter may be taken at your end as this area is de-notified from DDA's jurisdiction vide notification No. F.12/22/87-L&B/Pig. Dt. 31.05.1989. The copy of the Plan showing plot nos. E-53 to E-57 which are to be revoked (copy enclosed).
This issue is with the approval of VC, DDA."
13. From the bare perusal of this letter, it is clear that the revised layout plan with respect to the property no. E-53 to E-57, Page 9 of 11 out of which E-57 is the subject matter of the present appeal has been revoked by the DDA. Under the circumstances, any claim by Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd. about the title of property no. E-57 is not maintainable and consequently, the appellants herein. The record shows that DDA is owner of the property. The appellants are not able to show that they are the owners or their predecessors-in-interest was the owner.
14. So far as the order dated 07.04.2011, which was challenged before the AT MCD, it is pertinent to mention here that DDA has issued the letter no. F.5(55)/94/LPB/NZ/Pt./271 dated 10.03.2011 wherein the letter has been sent to the Chief Town Planner, MCD mentioning, as under:
"Sub: Regarding Building Activities on Plot No.E-57, Satyawati Nagar (WPC No. 2942/2010 in High Court) Ref: Letter No. TP/G/821/11 dated 9.3.11 Sir, Please refer to your above mentioned letter on the subject cited above. Please find enclosed herewith the copy of Award No. 1329A vide which the land in question bearing khasra No.648 village Wazir Pur was acquired for planned development of Delhi and the copy of possession proceedings of dated 28.5.1982 vide which it was handed over to DDA by the L&B/LAC. Therefore, it is requested to cancel the building plans of Plot No.E-57, Satyawati Nagar Colony which falls on the DDA land."
15. It is consequent to this letter, which resulted into revocation of the sanctioned building plan of plot no. E-57. Onus was upon the appellant to show that there is any illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the order passed by the MCD or AT MCD. Once it is established that even the layout plan does not approve the plots no. E-53 to E-57 in Satyawati Nagar, there is Page 10 of 11 no question that any building plan can be sanctioned for plot no. E-57, which is never approved in the layout plan, meaning thereby that there is no such plot in existence and the land belongs to the authority, in this case DDA.
16. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal. AT MCD has rightly considered all the aspects and passed the order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Trial court record alongwith copy of the judgment be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
VIRENDER
Announced in the open Court VIRENDER KUMAR
today i.e. 1st August, 2024 KUMAR BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2024.08.05
15:44:32
+0530
(Virender Kumar Bansal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (NW)
Rohini Courts, Delhi (sb)
Page 11 of 11