Delhi High Court - Orders
Kiran Tandon vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors on 3 December, 2020
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9824/2020, CM APPL. 31309/2020, CM APPL. 31310/2020
& CM APPL. 31311/2020
KIRAN TANDON .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Ms. Shally Bhasin,
Mr. Victor Das and Ms. Madhavi Agrawal,
Advocates.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel,
SDMC alongwith Ms. Ankita Bhadouriya,
Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Arvind Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Aseem Chaturvedi and Mr. Ajay Bhargava,
Advocates for R-2 & R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 03.12.2020 The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Corporation dated 07.10.2020, permitting R-2 and R-3 to construct a boundary wall in excess of the permissible standards under the Unified Building Bye Laws ('UBBL') for Delhi, 2016.
2 The learned Senior Advocate for R-2 and R-3 submits that the said boundary wall in accordance with the height permitted under Clause Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2020 16:01:35 12.13.1 of National Building Code of India, 2005. He submits that despite the fact that the UBBL permits the sidewalls to be raised up to 2.4 mtrs., the wall presently raised by R-2 and R-3 is only at a height of approximately 1.8 mtrs. and in any case, not exceeding the permissible height.
3 In the aforesaid communication of the Corporation, there is no mention of any height of the wall. Only its thickness of 9 inches has been indicated.
4 The petitioner is aggrieved by the Corporation permitting part of her property to be appropriated by R-2 and R-3. She claims to be in settled possession of the same for the past 60 years. 5 The dividing wall, between the two properties, is being sought to be raised by R-2 and R-3 to a height which is over 9 feet. It looks as under:
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2020 16:01:356 Ex facie, it is in breach of boundary wall height permissible under the UBBL, in particular, under Chapter 7, which is titled as General Building Requirements/Provisions and under Clause 12.13.1 of the National Building Code of India, 2005. The former reads as under: " 7.2.6 Boundary Wall Height:
Except with the special permission of the competent authority, the following norms shall apply. 7.2.6.1 For residential plotted development a. Front wall: Maximum 1.5m from highest adjacent road level at site/ground level to be solid (stone/ brick/ masonry etc.) and above 1.5m, it should be perforated (stone jail/iron grills/vegetation) to maintain visual continuity.
b. Side walls and back wall: Maximum 2.4 m from ground level to be solid (stone/brick/ masonry etc.) 7.2.6.2 In buildings of other occupancies- See 1.4.75:
Maximum 2.4 m from ground level.
7.2.6.3 However, the provisions of 7.2.6.1.and 7.2.6.2 are not applicable to boundary walls of institutional buildings like jails, juvenile homes, sanatoria, hospitals, industrial Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2020 16:01:35 buildings like workshops, factories and educational buildings like schools, colleges, including hostels and security establishments.
Note: the above provisions shall not apply to the building/areas where boundary walls are forbidden or specific height has been recommended by the Authority/local body or as per layout plan/ comprehensive plan/zonal plan/master plan regulations. 7.2.6.4 Boundary wall for LDRP (Low Density Residential Plot):
For LDRP the boundary wall height shall be maximum 3.0m height for plot size 1 Acre and above for security/safety reasons. See 7.23.5 and Annexure XV."
7 The Corporation shall ensure that the said boundary wall is in conformity with the relevant bye laws. Affidavit of compliance, along with photographs, shall be filed within four weeks. 8 The learned Senior Advocate for R-2 and R-3 submits that the difficulties faced by the petitioner are most unfortunate. He wishes she had not suffered the injuries suffered that she did. 9 The construction at the site, as evidenced from the photographs, shows that the same is not in compliance with the extant laws - in particular, and 7.2.6 of the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016.
10 The Corporation shall ensure that the construction of the boundary wall, as may be, shall be in terms of the extant provisions. 11 As regards the Corporation's finding, that the said boundary wall falls in the portion of land owned by R-2 and R-3, the same ex facie appears to be without jurisdiction.
12 The learned Senior Advocate for R-2 and R-3 submits that the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2020 16:01:35 respondents' building plan was sanctioned in 2018. As mentioned in para 4, the petitioner claims to be in settled possession of her plot of land, along with the existing boundary wall, for the past 60 years. 13 List on 11.01.2021.
14 In the interim, it will be open to the parties to endeavour to amicably settle the lis.
15 The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J DECEMBER 03, 2020 RW Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:04.12.2020 16:01:35