Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Accordingly, the Petitioners filed this present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:

"a) issue appropriate writ and direction whereby this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass direction to the respondents declaring Clause 10(2) of Terms and Conditions of Chapter 4.4.3.A (shelter) of Master Plan for Delhi, 2021, providing liberty to reduce rear setback upto zero in construction of a residential building in a planned, developed colony and constructed under the earlier Master Plan is not applicable in absence of any service lane, road or any other type of gap between two rows of plots adjoined by their rear part for which side setbacks had already been allowed to reduce upto zero and consequential amendment /deletion in concerned provisions of Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.3, V & 7.13.l and Schedule VI of the United Building Bye Laws for Delhi 2016 as the same is unconstitutional, ultra vires, reasonable, unjust, unfair and offends Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution besides offending various provisions of the DDA Act, 1957, DMC, Act 1957, objectives of Building Bye Laws and natural rights of the petitioners to sunlight and fresh air in their premises; and

8. It is further contended by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners that the MPD 2021 was introduced with the objective and vision of providing housing for the maximum number of residents of Delhi without compromising on health and safety conditions. Accordingly, Development Control Regulations ("DCRs") for plotted shelters were provided for under Sub-Paragraph (x)(2) of Paragraph 4.4.3 (A) of the MPD 2021. Pertinently it was brought to the attention of this Court that under Sub-Paragraph (x)(2) of Paragraph 4.4.3 (A) of the MPD 2021, plots admeasuring between 100 - 250 Sq. Meters were provided with the liberty to reduce the Rear Setback to zero i.e., provide for no Rear Setback and were only mandated to provision a front setback extending to 3 (three) meters.

28. The facts of case reveal that, prior to the commencement of the construction of the new superstructure on the Subject Property a setback / gap / distance of 6 (six) meters was prevalent between the Identified Property and the Subject Property on account of a net-Rear Setback extending 3 (three) meters each from the outer boundary wall to the rear façade of the superstructure on both the Identified Property as well as the Subject Property. Subsequently, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 commenced the construction of a new superstructure as per the construction plan sanctioned by the Respondent No. 1 / SMC. Pertinently, the new superstructure on the Subject Property provisioned for no Rear Setback i.e., zero rear setback and accordingly, the setback / gap / distance between the Identified Property and the Subject Property stood reduced to 3 (three) meters i.e, on account the Rear Setback provisioned for by the Petitioners on the Identified Property.

34. This Court has perused the relevant provisions of the UBBL 2016. In the considered opinion of this Court, Sub-Paragraph (x)(2) of Paragraph 4.4.3 (A) of the MPD 2021 cannot be said to be in contravention of the UBBL 2016 merely on account of permitting the construction of plots admeasuring up-to 250 Sq. Meters without a Rear Setback There are no fetters under the UBBL 2016 where under the reduction of Rear Setback and / or the introduction of a zero-Rear Setback is prohibited.