Delhi District Court
Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Mcd on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT KUMAR :
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, M.C.D., DELHI.
APPEAL NO.491/ATMCD/12
APPEAL NO.519/ATMCD/12
1. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta,
2. Smt. Sunita Gupta,
Both R/o C-75, Shivaji Park,
West Punjabi Bagh
New Delhi-110026. ........ Appellants
Vs
South Delhi Municipal Corporation.
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110002. .......Respondent
Date of Filing of Appeal : 14.09.2012 &
25.09.2012.
Date of Order : 30.03.2026
ORDER
1. These are two appeals challenging the revocation order dated 04.09.2012 revoking the sanctioned building plan and the demolition order dated 18.09.2012 passed in respect of property No.C-75, Shivaji Park, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
2. The demolition order is a consequence of the revocation order as the sanctioned building plan of the said property was revoked.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these two appeals are that the appellants are the owners of subject property measuring 668.6 sq.yds. equivalent to 559.03 sq.mtr. The appellants obtained a sanctioned building plan for the subject property and raised construction thereupon. Pursuant to a complaint made before Public Grievance Cell of Delhi Government, a show cause notice APPEAL No.491/12 & 519/12 Sh. Rajesh Gupta & Anr Vs SDMC Page 1 of 6 dated 28.05.2012 was issued under Section 338 of the DMC Act. This show cause notice was issued on the ground that the appellants avail the benefit of preceding to preceding category in terms of set-back in order to achieve permissible ground coverage whereas the MPD-2021 does not permit taking benefit of preceding to preceding category in terms of set-back. It was also stated in the show cause notice that the dimension of the plot line reflected in the plan differs from the previous sanctioned building plan and last the cess charges sheet reflect deficiencies of charges.
4. This show cause notice was replied on 09.06.2012 stating that there is no bar in clause 4.4.3 (x)(a) of MPD-2021 to avail preceding to preceding category for set- backs and as such there is no misrepresentation by the appellants nor there is fraudulent statement of facts and therefore, the show cause notice should be withdrawn.
5. The respondent after considering the reply and documents, revoked the sanctioned building plan granted vide file No.15/B/HQ/SP/2010 dated 18.01.2010. Simultaneously show cause notice dated 11.09.2022 was also issued under 344 (1) and 343 of the DMC Act and thereafter the demolition order dated 18.09.2012 was passed.
6. The appellants have challenged these two orders on the ground that the appellants are entitled to achieve coverage permissible under Master Plan and for that are legally entitled to reduce the size of set-backs that are mandatory for the plots of preceding category. It was argued that there is no bar in clause 4.4.3(x)(a) of MPD-2021 to avail lower to lower category for set-backs. It was argued that sanctioned building plan can be revoked u/s 338 of DMC Act only on the ground of misrepresentation of facts or fraudulent statements and since none exists in the present case, the revocation order has been passed unlawfully. It was argued that under MPD-2021 the Technical Committee of the DDA is empowered to interpret the provisions of MPD-2021 in case of any anomaly in the provisions. The decision of the Technical Committee is binding under statute. The DDA in respect of residential property No.M-17, Green Park through a decision of Technical Committee granted permission for utilization of preceding APPEAL No.491/12 & 519/12 Sh. Rajesh Gupta & Anr Vs SDMC Page 2 of 6 to preceding category of set-backs to achieve permissible FAR and on the basis of that decision of Technical Committee, the appellants are also entitled to utilize preceding to preceding category of set-backs to achieve FAR. It was argued that the subsequent decision of the Technical Committee to withdraw the permission granted to M-17, Green Park, cannot be a reason to dismiss this appeal since at the relevant time the decision of the Technical Committee in this regard existed and appellants are entitled to take benefit of the same. It was also argued that the respondent cannot be permitted to rely upon subsequent orders passed by the technical committee nullifying its earlier decision of granting permission to property NO.M-17 Green Park and since at the relevant time it was permitted to take benefit of preceding to preceding category of set-backs, the appeals should be allowed the revocation order dated 04.09.2012 and the consequent demolition order dated 18.09.2012 should be set aside.
7. Ld counsel for the appellants in support of his submissions placed reliance upon the following judgments.
a) Mohinder Singh Gill Vs Chief Election Officer 1978 (1) SCC 405.
b) N.T. Bevin Kath Vs Karnatka Public Service Commission 1990 SCR (2) 239.
c) Ambala Bus Syndicate Pvt Ltd. Vs State Government AIR 1963 P&H 92.
d) Oryx Fisheries Pvt Ltd. Vs UOI (2010) 13 SCC 427.
8. Ld. counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the appellants cannot be permitted to take benefit of preceding to preceding category for set- backs to achieve FAR in case of residential plots. That benefit is available only for non-residential plots. The permission granted by Technical Committee in respect of property No.M-17 Green Park was an error which was subsequently cancelled and appellants cannot take any benefit of that order. It was argued that the permission to property No.M-17 dated 11.08.2011 was void ab-initio and was withdrawn in the meeting of Technical Committee held on 21.10.2015 vide item No.51/15. It was argued that the appellants cannot take benefits of void ab-initio APPEAL No.491/12 & 519/12 Sh. Rajesh Gupta & Anr Vs SDMC Page 3 of 6 order nor can claim any parity as that order stands withdrawn. It was argued that the appellants misrepresented the facts while obtaining sanction by taking benefit of preceding to preceding category set-backs to achieve FAR and their sanctioned building plan was rightly revoked and therefore the appeals should be dismissed.
9. I have perused the record. The appellants admittedly obtained a sanctioned building plan for residential plot falling in the category of 250 to 750 sq.mtr plot. The maximum ground coverage permissible under this category is 75 with FAR of 225 and 6 dwelling units. As per the terms and conditions provided under clause 4.4.3(x) of MPD-2021 minimum set back of six meters in front and three meters each in the rear and both sides is mandatory. Under sub clause 4.4.3(x)(a), in case the permissible coverage is not achieved with above mentioned set-backs in a plot, the set-back of the preceding category may be allowed. It means that appellants as per this clause could have taken set-backs of the preceding category i.e. plot falling above 250 and up to 500 sq.mtr which can have front, rear and one side set-back of three meter each. The appellants however, took the benefit of set-backs of preceding to preceding category i.e. for plots above 100 sq.mtr and up to 250 sq.mtr which are required to have only front set-back of three meters. There is no provision in MPD-2021 permitting benefit of preceding to preceding category in case of residential plots if permissible FAR is not achieved. MPD-2021 under its table 17.1 provides concession for minimum set-back only in case of plots other than residential plotted development plots. The appellants are trying to take benefit of preceding to preceding category only on the basis of some order passed by the Technical Committee in respect of property No.M-17, Green Park. Records of that file were summoned alongwith reports from DDA. It was informed to this Court that the said permission granted to property No.M-17, Green Park, by the Technical Committee was void ab-initio order and has been withdrawn in subsequent Technical Committee meeting on 21.10.2015.
10. It is not a case where an existing law has been withdrawn which was there at the relevant time when the appellants took benefit of set-backs of preceding to APPEAL No.491/12 & 519/12 Sh. Rajesh Gupta & Anr Vs SDMC Page 4 of 6 preceding category. It was only an order of Technical Committee which was passed on wrong premises that benefit of preceding to preceding category of set- back in case of residential plots is also permitted. That was never the case and that order of Technical Committee was certainly void ab-initio and was rightly withdrawn.
11. MPD-2021 does not permit relaxation of set-backs other than to the preceding category in case of non-achievement of FAR in that category. Appellants are not entitled to take benefit of set-backs of preceding to preceding category. The appellants cannot be permitted to take benefit of their own wrongs. They should have constructed the property in such a manner that the mandatory set-backs in the preceding category i.e. for plots above 250 sq.mtr and up to 500 sq.mtr is maintained. They themselves violated the law and are trying to take benefit on the grounds of parity of an order which has already been withdrawn for property No.M-17, Green Park. They committed misrepresentation of facts while getting the building plan sanctioned from the office and therefore, same was rightly revoked.
12. The reliance placed by Ld. counsel for the appellants on the orders of this court dated 25.09.2012 is baseless as that order was passed on prima facie submissions in the appeal and was not an order passed after hearing both the parties. A prima facie opinion may or may not be valid at the stage of final decision when both the parties are heard and record and contentions are appreciated.
13. The demolition order was passed on the basis of the fact of revocation of sanctioned building plan. Since the revocation order has been upheld, the demolition order is also up held as the construction in the property now becomes unauthorized.
14. In these facts, both the appeals are dismissed and the impugned orders are upheld.
APPEAL No.491/12 & 519/12 Sh. Rajesh Gupta & Anr Vs SDMC Page 5 of 615. 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 30.03.2026 (AMIT KUMAR) District Judge-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal : MCD Delhi APPEAL No.491/12 & 519/12 Sh. Rajesh Gupta & Anr Vs SDMC Page 6 of 6