Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Finding that the provisions of the DMC Act by virtue of Section 1(2) thereof extend to "Delhi" defined in Section 2(10) of the Act as "the entire area of Union Territory of Delhi except New Delhi and Delhi Cantonment", it was enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the Transport Centre fell in Delhi so defined or not.

11. The counsel for the petitioner while not controverting that the Transport Centre is in Delhi however refers to Section 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (DD Act) to contend that the Transport Centre is a "development area" within the meaning of the said provision. Reference is further made to para 42 of the judgment in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 1325 laying down that the Scheme under the DD Act is that during the development, it is the responsibility of DDA to demolish and seal any premises if there is contravention and after handing over of the area to the local authority under Section 36 of the DD Act, the power of demolition and/or sealing is conferred on local authority whether it be MCD or Delhi Cantonment or any other authority depending upon the development area falling in the local limits of one or other. It was further held that so long as a area is a development area, the power to deal with it remains with the DDA in terms of Section 3(i) of the Act and it is only after the responsibility thereof has been assumed by the local authority in the manner provided in Section 36, the power to deal with the properties in that area for any contravention would be exercisable by the local authority.

16. It may be noticed that the DD Act on the basis whereof the powers of the MCD are sought to be excluded in the present case is of the same year as the DMC Act; rather, while the DD Act is Act 61 of 1957, the DMC Act is Act 66 of 1957 and the DMC Act can thus be said to be an enactment subsequent to the DD Act. Thus the principles laid down in the judgment aforesaid apply on all fours.

17. Independently of the aforesaid judgment also, I am of the opinion that no restrictions on the applicability of the DMC Act as contended can be read. The scope of the DMC Act and the DD Act are entirely different; while the DMC Act is concerned with the municipal governance of Delhi and under Section 41 thereof municipal governance of Delhi has been vested in MCD and which would include maintenance and removal of encroachment from the streets, the DD Act is concerned with development of Delhi and which has been defined in Section 2(d) thereof itself as carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in or over or under land or the making of any material change in any building or land including by way of re-development. The DD Act is thus not concerned with municipal governance or with the removal of encroachment from streets and/or sanitation, nuisance etc. except when in relation to development.

19. The object of the DDA as specified in Section 6 of the DD Act do not show that the DDA is concerned with such public streets. Similarly, I do not find anything in Sections 12 or 36 or any other provision of the DD Act to show that the streets open to the public in such development areas of the DDA do not vest in the MCD. Merely because DDA has chosen to carry out the work of scavenging in relation to the streets in the Transport Centre itself, would not lead to any such inference of the streets not vesting in the MCD. Even otherwise there is no power in the DD Act empowering the DDA to remove encroachments from the public streets within development areas as the Transport Centre is. If it were to be held that MCD has no such power in the development areas of DDA it would lead to incongruous situation whereby no Public Body or Authority would have jurisdiction to remove such encroachments / obstructions on public streets and which state of affairs cannot be permitted.

24. After having reached the conclusion as aforesaid that "streets" in "development areas" of DDA also vest in MCD as public street, I find the question to be no longer res integra. This Court as far back as in Chander Bhan Sharma v. Suraj Bhan ILR (1970) 1 Delhi 792 was faced with the question as to whether the declaration of Krishan Nagar as development area for purposes of the DD Act had the effect of divesting the jurisdiction which MCD had over Krishan Nagar. It was held that entrustment if any of an area to DDA is just for the purposes of development as defined in the DD Act and the MCD continues to be responsible for the performance of the obligatory and discretionary functions under Sections 42 and 43 of the DMC Act and that the area though entrusted to the Development Authority for the purposes of development, continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of MCD if situated within the territorial limits of MCD.