Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) The petitioners numbering six by this petition filed under Article 226 of t (2) The petitioners contend that the land use of the property bearing No. D-1097 and of their houses as well is residential and it cannot be used for commercial purposes or use and that will be contrary to the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (DD Act), the rules and regulations framed there under, under the Master Plan, the Zonal Plan and the Layout Plan of the colony, all being statutory in nature. They further contend that use of the property in question for any other purpose except residential is again illegal and contrary to the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act).

(3) The immediate cause for filing this petition was that the third respondent was going to commence the full-scale commercial activity in the property in question in the nature of safe deposit lockers which would not only be against the provisions of the Dd Act and Dmc Act but also would result in a public nuisance. Petitioners further say that for the purpose of conversion of the residential premises into commercial one certain unauthorised constructions were also going on in the property. When the petitioners found that more than 500 lockers were being lifted from truck outside the property and were being stored therein they immediately wrote letters to the authorities concerned, but since no action was taken, this petition was filed.

(6) During the course of arguments Mr. Jayant Bhushan for the Delhi Development Authority said that Dda would also take action as per law under the Dd Act. The question then arose if the Dda would as well resort to provisions of sections 30, 31 and 31A of the DDAct. These provisions provide for demolition of building, power to stop development and power to seal unauthorised development. Mr. Bhushan on instructions said that as at present Dda has no power to seal the property in case of misuse as those provisions would apply when there is unauthorised development which would mean unauthorised construction and in case of misuse Delhi Development Authority would proceed under the lease deed to cancel the lease for, breach of terms thereof and also file prosecution under section 29 of the Dd Act. This stand of Dda led to a great deal of controversy. Mr. Rohtagi said unauthorised development would also include misuse of the property and this Court, therefore, should give ruling on that. He also compared the provisions of the Dmc Act and Dd Act on this aspect of the matter. Mr.Rohtagi also said that the argument of Delhi Development Authority comes to that while it would take action only under the lease deed for enforcing the terms of the contract when it was statutorily obliged to take action under the Act for stopping the misuse and sealing the property.

(19) Mr. Rohtagi said the definition of "development" has to be expanded to include misuse as well. To develop his argument Mr. Rohtagi referred to four decisions of the Supreme Court in (1) The Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Madras v. M/ s Fraser and Ross and another ; (2) Collector of Customs, Bardoa v.Digvijaysinhji Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.,Jamnagar ; (3) The Commissioner of Expenditure-tax, Gujarat v. Darshan Surendra Parekh ; and (4) National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Pritam Singh Gill and others . We have examined these judgments. We do not find these to be of any help to the petitioners and we do not wish to burden our judgment by analysing these judgments. The three sections do not partake within their scope where there is misuse of the premises in contravention of the provisions of the Dd Act. If we accept what Mr.Rohtagi says it will be rather giving offence to the language of these sections. When the expression "context otherwise requires" is used with reference to any provision of the Act and it results in absurdity, then the definition given cannot be used and has to be discarded and then ordinary meaning assigned to it is to be used and not that the definition is to be expanded to mean something different which legislature itself did not contemplate. To develop any area of land means to build houses or factories on it especially in order to make it more useful and profitable and ' development' is the process of making an area of land more useful or profitable (Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary). We do not find there is any ambiguity in the language used in the three sections and we do not think the word "misuse" can be read in "development" as used in these sections. These sections, therefore, cannot be resorted to for user of the property contrary to the provisions of the Dd Act or in breach of the terms of the lease deed.