W.P.(C)/3913/2017 of JINENDER KUMAR Vs NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C) 3913/2017

JITNENDER KUMAR

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Samrat Nigam, Mr.Amit Punj andMr. Shaurya Kuthiala, Advs.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION& ORS

..... Respondents

ThroughMr. Ajjay Arora and Mr. Kapil Dutta,Advs. for NDMC.Mr. Ankur Chhiber and Mr.BhanuGupta, Advs. for R-2/GNCTD.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANIO R R%28.02.2019

The petitioner is aggrieved by alleged widespread unauthorizedbuilding activities in New Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi in the vicinity of RedFort. The petitioner contends that in flagrant violation of the Master Plan forDelhi as well as applicable Building Bye-Laws indiscriminate, haphazardand totally illegal construction has been undertaken over decades in the saidmarket, evidently under the nose of the respondent authorities, who haveturned blind-eye to such utter disregard of the law.

2.Mr. Samrat Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drawsattention to order dated 20.08.2014, made by Division Bench of this Courtheaded by Hon’ble the Chief Justice at that time in W.P.(C) No. 3332/1998

titled M/s Ellar Traders vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. inwhich, vide order dated 20.08.2014 the Division Bench was constrained toobserve as follows :

“19. We are of the view that no useful purpose is beingserved in keeping the present petition pendingat the cost ofprecious judicial time. As perusal of the aforesaid wouldshow, inspite of best efforts, this Court has been unable toexpedite the preparation of the redevelopment plan of theLajpat Rai Market. The said preparation of redevelopmentplans is dependent upon the interplay of several agenciesand inspite of directions issued by this Court from time totime to each of the agencies, the preparation of theredevelopment plan has not been finalized owing to the buckbeing passed from one agency to another.The task ofpreparation of the redevelopment plan is in any way anadministrative one. However, the delays in finalizationthereof have an adverse impact on the city of Delhi ingeneral; owing to the said delays, the Old as well as NewLajpat Rai Markets which admittedly have haphazardconstruction, continue to be an eye sore affecting themajesty of the ancient monument of Red Fort which attractsall tourists visiting the city of Delhi and which is adesignated World Heritage site. The existence of suchhaphazard unplanned construction in full view of Red Fortwhich continues to have historical importance with thePrime Minister addressing the Nation every year from theramparts thereof, is indeed blot on our culture, historyand heritage. The uncertainty which prevails has also led tothe action which ought to have been taken for demolition ofunauthorized constructions in the said markets being alsoheld up. Such delays bordering on inaction, make the entireexercise of preparation of Master Plan for the city, afutility.

20.We therefore see no option but to invite the attention ofHon’ble the Lt. Governor of Delhi to the matter and torequest him to ensure that the redevelopment plan, at least

of the Lajpat Rai Market, Old and New, is finalized andimplemented at the earliestso that the majesty of the RedFort/LalQuilatothatextentisrestored.

21.Copies of the ordersheets in these petitions beforwarded along with copy of this order to Hon’ble Lt.Governor forthwith for intimation and follow-up action.

22.We also direct the concerned municipal corporation orthe other agency having jurisdiction over the markets toensure that at least till the finalization and implementationoftheredevelopmentplan,nofurtherunauthorizedconstruction is carried out in the markets and that theunauthorized construction which is beyond the FAR of 300at least is removed forthwith. Since in the ordersheets, wehave found some controversy whether the market has/hadbeen handed over to the MCD or not and as to the localbody/authority having jurisdiction over the market, Hon’bleLt. Governor to also ensure that our directions areconveyed to the concerned agency and implemented. Wesuggest that Hon’ble Lt. Governor calls for periodicimplementation report, as this Court has been doing for thelast 15 years.

23.With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

3.It be noted that the aforesaid order came to be passed after the courthad given its attention to the issue for 16 long years. W.P. (C) No.3332/1998aforesaid had been filed in the name of his sole proprietorship concern bythe same person who is petitioner in this matter.

4.Since the anguish and exasperation expressed by Division Bench ofthis Court yielded no meaningful result, an application was moved by thepetitioner in the said matter seeking revival of the writ petition, in whichrevival application bearing CM APPL No.15028/2015, the Division Benchobserved as under in its order dated 03.02.2017:

“3. Having gone through the contents of the applicationsmoved in this petition disposed of on 20[th]August, 2014 andhaving heard the counsels, we are of the view that nopurpose will be served, neither by revival of this writ petitionnor does the question of impleading new parties in thedisposed of petition arises.

4. We dispose of these applications granting liberty to thepetitioner/applicant in the application for revival of thepetition to institute fresh proceedings as he may be entitled toin accordance with law and to the applicant seekingimpleadment to also take legal remedies available to him inlaw. Needless to state that the fresh proceedings, if anybrought by the applicant in the application for revival of thepetition, will not be defeated owing to any orders passed inthis petition.

5. The applications are disposed of.”

5.At the outset the petitioner asserts that his own premises in the saidmarket conforms to all regulations, including the Building Bye-Laws andapplicable provisions of the Master Plan.

6.The present petition is therefore renewed effort by the petitioner toseek remedy against the blatant and rampant breach and violation of alllaws, rules and regulations pertaining to building construction in the saidpart of Delhi.

7.Thepetitionhoweverstands-outinasmuchas,addedtothepetitioner’s long standing grievance, is the anguish, pain and annoyanceexpressed by no less than Division Bench of this court headed by Hon’blethe Chief Justice at that time; the observations contained in judgment dated20.08.2014 having been honoured only in the breach and not in theobservance.

8.Status report dated 01.08.2018 filed by respondent No.1/North DMC

in this matter recites to the effect that the redevelopment plan/scheme for thearea was prepared and was approved by the Standing Committee ofrespondent No.1 vidé Resolution dated 08.02.2017 as also by respondentNo.1/corporation on 14.03.2017.

9.Thereafter, the status report states, the redevelopment plan was sent tothe Secretary, Department of Urban Development of the Government ofNCT of Delhi for notification vidé note dated 20.04.2017; but the same isyet to be notified.

10.The status report also sets-out the action taken in respect of individualshops in the said market; thereafter taking the usual stand that respondentNo.1/North DMC takes in almost every such matter, namely : thatdemolition order has been passed; that demolition action is planned and willbe executed subject to availability of police force, in accordance with law.11.Needless to add, that according to the petitioner, no action hasensued, in accordance with law.

12.In the context of the grievance made in the petition, it transpires thatin compliance of orders of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4677/1985 titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors, the Ministry ofHousing & Urban Affairs (“MHUA”) of the Government of India has videOffice Memorandum dated 25.04.2018 constituted Special Task Force tocomprehensively address violations of the provisions of the UnifiedBuilding Bye Laws and Master Plan for Delhi-2021 relating inter alia toconstructionactivityandland-useinDelhi.VideanotherOfficeMemorandum dated 23.05.2018 the MHUA has also formulated an actionplan for monitoring construction activities in Delhi and for fixingresponsibility in case of violations of the Unified Building Bye Laws and

the Master Plan.

13.Vide order dated 20.09.2018 made in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1807/2018 titled Devender vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (andconnected matters) by the Division Bench of this Court headed by Hon’blethe Chief Justice, the Court has held that in view of the setting-up of theSpecial Task Force under directions of the Supreme Court it is notappropriate for our court to exercise jurisdiction in matters relating tounauthorised construction; and has disposed of such matters granting libertyto the petitioners to raise their grievances before the Special Task Force soconstituted, in accordance with the scheme and procedure formulated underthe aforesaid two Office Memorandums.

14.By order dated 24.09.2018 made in subsequent matter, being WritPetition (Civil) No. 9938/2018 titled Suresh Chand Goel vs. East DelhiMunicipal Corporation, the Division Bench has followed its earlier orderdated 20.09.2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1807/2018, similarly disposingof the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file complaintbefore the Special Task Force. I am informed that the Division Bench hassubsequently also made similar orders in other matters.

15.To be sure, the petitions that were subject matter of the aforesaidproceedings before the Division Bench were petitions filed in public interestand otherwise; and related to contravention not only of sanctioned buildingplans but also of various laws, including the Delhi Municipal CorporationAct, 1957, the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957, the New DelhiMunicipal Council Act, 1994, the Ancient Monuments and ArchaeologicalSites and Remains Act, 1958 and the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act,1904 as also encroachment on public land etc.

16.The aforesaid Special Task Force is 15-member body withrepresentation of the highest level from all concerned municipal, civic,revenue and law enforcement agencies of Delhi; and is therefore ideallysuited for multi-agency, coordinated action against the rampant malaise ofbreachofvariouslaws,rulesandregulationsgoverningbuildingconstruction and land-use in Delhi.

17.I am informed that as of date the Special Task Force even has its owndedicated website and mobile application to facilitate making of complaints,thereby making it even easier for parties to take their grievances before thesaid agency.

18.Accordingly, I am of the view that the correct course of action in thismatter also would be to dispose of the present writ petition, giving liberty tothe petitioner to approach the Special Task Force in accordance with thepolicy and procedure laid down for the purpose in MHUA’s OfficeMemorandums dated 25.04.2018 and 23.05.2018 and avail the saidalternate, efficacious remedy.

19.This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

20.Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

21.In the light of what is recorded above, I am of the view that thismatter deserves urgent and spirited attention of the Special Task Force,subject of course to the constraints of time and resources under which theSpecial Task Force no doubt operates.

FEBRUARY 28, 2019Pallavi

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J