Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In my opinion the arguments urged on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs have to be rejected for two reasons.

7. The first reason is that when MPD 2021 as per its Clause 4.4.3 requires a previous category then obviously previous category will become the category at serial no.3. As per this previous category at serial no.3 whereas the front and rear setbacks remain the same, however one side setback can be reduced up to zero as seen in the last/sixth vertical column. It is not the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that both the side setbacks have been covered completely and therefore the construction is illegal and could not be regularized. Obviously, therefore the contesting defendants would have only covered one side setback completely with, the wall of the property of the contesting defendants being attached to and adjoining to the construction of the appellants/plaintiffs and which is permissible as one side setback can be zero in terms of the chart in Clause 4.4.3. It is not the case of the appellants/plaintiffs in any of the courts below or even this Court that both the side setbacks of the property of the contesting defendants have been completely covered by their being no side setback at all for both the sides of the property. Therefore once regularization of the compoundable construction is permissible so that construction can be 75%, and once one side setback can be zero, hence there is no need of leaving a side setback at all at one side of the property of the contesting defendants and which adjoins the property of the appellants/plaintiffs. There is thus no illegality in the MCD/defendant no.1/respondent no.1 regularizing the construction of the contesting defendants in terms of their letter dated 29.3.2007 proved as Ex.D3W1/2. After all there is no dispute that the contesting defendants have exceeded the 75% coverage which is permissible.