Delhi District Court
The Real Coop. Group Housing Society vs Mcd on 19 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT KUMAR :
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, M.C.D., DELHI.
APPEAL NO. 454/ATMCD/2012.
The Regal Co-Opportunity Group
Housing Society Ltd. (Registered)
Through its Authorized Representative,
Regd. Office at Star Apartments,
Plot No. 24/1, Sector-IX,
Rohini, Delhi-110085. ........... Appellant
Vs
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Civic Center, J.L. Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110002 ........ Respondent
Date of Filing of Appeal: 28.08.2012
Date of Order : 19.12.2025
1. This is an appeal filed by the Group Housing Society challenging the rejection of its regularization application which was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2012. The regularization application was filed sometime in March, 2012 as recorded in the order dated 17.04.2012 of Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P.(C) 2113/2011. This order dated 30.07.2012 has been challenged on the ground that no proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant and the grounds of rejection were not informed to the appellant nor opportunity was given to comply with formalities. The letter of Town Planner written to the respondent was not provided to the appellant and the deficiencies in the application for regularization was not brought to the knowledge of the appellant despite order dated 17.04.2012 of Hon'ble High Court and therefore the appeal should be allowed and the impugned order should set-aside and the application for regularization should be reopened.
2. It was argued for the appellant that as per the status report dated 13.11.2018 there are three categories of flats in the appellant society i.e. A.No. 454/12 Regal Co-Op. Group Hsg. Society Vs MCD Page No. 1 of 3 type A, B & C and have excess covered area of few square meters. The same is within compoundable limits of 5% FAR as per Annexure-IV of UBBL-2016 and if there is any excess coverage of more than 5% of FAR, the respondent is at liberty to demolish that excess coverage. It was submitted that this court has sufficient power to mould the relief as per current situation and no fresh appeal is required to be filed after subsequent rejection of regularization application. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Gaiv Dinshaw Irani & Ors. Vs. Tehmtan Irani & Ors. (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 294
3. Ld counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that this appeal has become infructuous since after filing this appeal, the regularization application of the appellant was reopened and thereafter rejected on 06.04.2018 which was duly communicated to the appellant on 11.04.2018. The appellant thereafter applied for reconsider/reopening of the regularization application and the fresh rejection is a new cause of action and therefore this appeal is to be rejected on this ground alone.
4. I have perused the record. There are around 164 flats in this society of three categories i.e. type A, B & C. Type A flats has sanctioned size of 96.65 sq. meter, type B has 74.97 sq. meter whereas type C has sanctioned size of 61.19 sq. meter. Every flat has its own particular deviations/excess coverage and a common application for regularization application of all the flats cannot be filed. It is settled law that an order of demolition/sealing of the respondent for entire society flats is bad in law. Respondent is required to pass separate order for each flat. On the same premises, a common regularization application for all flats of the society with each flat having its own particular deviations and excess coverage cannot be filed. It is further not possible to grant regularization for each flat in one common application for the simple reason that if in future a particular flat owner violates the regularization plan, the action has to be taken only against that flat and common regularization for entire society cannot be revoked for violation by a particular flat. Filing of a common application for regularizing of construction of entire society flats itself was wrong in law.
A.No. 454/12 Regal Co-Op. Group Hsg. Society Vs MCD Page No. 2 of 3
5. Further, the appellant after the impugned order 30.07.2012 got the regularization application reopened which was subsequently rejected on 06.04.2018 and is a separate and new cause of action. The judgment relied upon by ld counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of this case as in that case the Hon'ble High Court moulded the relief only because during the pendency of the case flats were constructed in the property and out of those flats five were directed to be given to the plaintiffs. The flats were not in existence when the suit was filed and were built during trial. In those facts the relief was moulded by Hon'ble High Court but the cause of action remained the same which was granting lease by Bombay Municipal Corporation to defendant no. 2 in that suit.
6. In the present appeal, this appeal became infructuous once the appellant applied for reopening of regularization application and the same was reopened and rejected on 06.04.2018 giving a fresh cause of action. The order dated 06.04.2018 is to be challenged on its own grounds and those grounds cannot be same nor considered for challenging the impugned order dated 30.07.2012.
7. In these facts, this appeal is dismissed being infructuous as well as for the reason that a common application for regularization of all the flats of the society was itself wrong as each flat owner has to seek regularization of his own flat.
8. Record of the respondent, if any, be returned along with copy of this order and appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court, Today i.e. on 19.12.2025 (AMIT KUMAR) District Judge-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal : MCD/DELHI A.No. 454/12 Regal Co-Op. Group Hsg. Society Vs MCD Page No. 3 of 3