M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

[2020] 10 S.C.R. 718

[2020] 10 S.C.R.

M.C. MEHTA

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985)

BAUGUST 14, 2020

[ARUN MISHRA, B. R. GAVAI ANDKRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Present writ petitionwas filed in 1985 concerning issues like environment in Delhi,Cshifting of heavy industries, misuse of premises (includingunauthorized construction) etc. – Supreme Court appointedMonitoring Committee in 2006 to put restraint on misuse of theresidential premises for unauthorized/commercial purpose –However, Monitoring Committee acting on letter written by SDMDalso sealed residential premises on private land not used forcommercial purpose – Propriety of – Held: Monitoring Committeecould not have acted based on any such letter – It is apparent fromthe various orders passed by this Court and reports of the MonitoringCommittee from time to time that it was never authorized to takeaction against the residential premises not being used for commercialEpurposes – It was appointed only to check the misuse of residentialproperties for commercial purposes – Later, it was also directed tolook into encroachment and unauthorized colonies on the publicland – At no point in time, Monitoring Committee was empoweredby this Court to act vis-à-vis the purely residential premises on privateFland – If there is unauthorized construction or deviation, the requisiteprovisions are under the 1957 Act – Monitoring Committee couldnot have sealed the residential premises not misused for commercialpurpose as done vide Report No.149, nor directed their demolition– Report No.149, other connected reports and entire action ofsealing pursuant thereto is quashed – Demolition notices alsoGquashed – Properties sealed as per Report No.149 be de-sealedand possession restored to the owners – Constitution of India –Article 300A – Delhi Development Act, 1957 – Delhi Laws (SpecialProvisions) Act, 2006.

Issuing directions, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Monitoring Committee was appointed andempowered by this Court to take action within the powersconferred. In the teeth of various statutes, it would act strictlywithin the four corners of the powers conferred on it by this Court.When the various orders passed by this Court from time to time,before the constitution of the Monitoring Committee, areconsidered it is found that this Court at no point in time hasempowered the Monitoring Committee to take action withrespect to residential premises not used for commercial purpose.This Court initially passed an order on 7.5.2004 and constitutedthe Monitoring Committee comprising of (i) Chief Secretary ofDelhi, (ii) Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (iii) Commissioner,Municipal Corporation of Delhi and (iv) Vice-Chairman of DelhiDevelopment Authority. It was ordered that MonitoringCommittee would be responsible for the stoppage of illegalindustrial activities. The Monitoring Committee was constitutedby this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2006 in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 399. The onlyquestion for consideration of this Court was the misuse of theresidential premises for illegal or commercial purposes. It is clearfrom the order dated 16.2.2006 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of Indiathat this Court noted unauthorized construction but appointedthe Monitoring Committee to put restraint on the misuse ofthe residential premises for the unauthorized/commercialpurpose. Pursuant to the order dated 16.2.2006, the MonitoringCommittee was formed on 24.3.2006. The court again emphasizedthat its order should be carried out in letter and spirit in the caseof M.C. Mehta v. Union of India reported in (2006) 3 SCC 429passed on 24.3.2006. This Court directed to prevent misuse ofthe property in accordance with the previous order to mean thatresidential premises/ area should not be used for commercialpurposes. In compliance with the directions issued by this Courton 24.4.2018 for the constitution of the Special Task Force, anOffice Memorandum dated 25.4.2018 was issued, which was notwith respect to the conferral of powers on the MonitoringCommittee, but of the Special Task Force. The MonitoringCommittee was authorized to take care of the unauthorizedcolonies, and the Special Task Force was directed to remove the

Aencroachments from the public roads and public streets. ThisCourt considered Report No.114 and thereby had passed certainorders. Report No.114 of 2018 is related to unauthorizedconstructions and commercial activities in 1797 unauthorizedcolonies. Thus, the order of this Court was confined to theunauthorized colonies and commercial activities mentioned in theBreport as to encroachment on the public land. This Courtspecifically dealt with in several orders the questions relating topower and the purpose for which the Monitoring Committee hadbeen appointed. Matter of encroachment is matter of concern,but the Monitoring Committee can act within the four corners ofCpowers conferred upon it and purpose for which the courtappointed the Monitoring Committee. It cannot exceed its powersand take any action beyond its authorization by the court. [Paras17-19 (i), (ii), (vi), 20, 31, 32, 36 and 43][732-C-E; 733-A-B; 735-C; 743-E-F; 744-F; 760-D; 761-C-D; 763-A-B; 766-G]

DM. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC399 : [2006] 2 SCR 264; M. C. Mehta v. Union of Indiareported in (2006) 3 SCC 429 – referred to.

1.2 It is apparent from the various orders passed by thisCourt from time to time and from the various reports of theEMonitoring Committee that it was never authorized by this Courtto take action against the residential premises that were notbeing used for commercial purposes. It was appointed only tocheck the misuser of the residential properties for commercialpurposes. After that, this Court directed that the MonitoringCommittee should also look into the matter of “encroachmentFon the public land” and “unauthorized colonies” that have comeup on the public land and were wholly unauthorized withoutsanction. At no point in time, this Court had empowered theMonitoring Committee to act vis-à-vis to the purely residentialpremises. The power of sealing of property carries civilGconsequences. person can be deprived of the property byfollowing procedure in accordance with law. The MonitoringCommittee is not authorized to take action concerning theresidential premises situated on the private land. If there isunauthorized construction or in case of deviation, the requisiteprovisions are under the DMC Act, such as sections 343, 345,H

347(A), 347(B). The mode of action and adjudication under theAct is provided including appellate provisions and that of theTribunal. It would not be appropriate to the MonitoringCommittee to usurp statutory powers and act beyond authorityconferred upon it by the Court. The Monitoring Committee couldnot have sealed the residential premises, which were not misusedfor the commercial purpose as done vide Report No.149, nor itcould have directed the demolition of those residential properties.[Paras 85, 86][782-H; 783-A-E]

1.3 Article 300A of the Constitution provides that nobodycan be deprived of the property and right of residence otherwisein the manner prescribed by law. When the statute prescribes amode, the property’s deprivation cannot be done in other modessince this Court did not authorize the Committee to take actionin the matter. It is quite apparent that particularly when theMonitoring Committee is not empowered to take action, theincumbents could not have been deprived of the due process ofprotection in accordance with law. As against the action of theMonitoring Committee, no appeal lies elsewhere. Even HighCourt is not authorized to entertain any matter and scrutinize itsaction, such is the drastic step taken by this Court by way of anexceptional measure in public interest, and it is confined to themisuse of residential property for commercial purpose andencroachments and unauthorized construction on the public land,roads. [Paras 87, 88][783-E-F; 788-E-F]

State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC77 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 1; K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd v.State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1 : [2011] 13 SCR636; T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member, (2006)8 SCC 502 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 534; State of U. P. v.Manohar (2005) 2 SCC 126 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR911; Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State ofU. P. & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 354 : [2011] 12 SCR 191;Ramchandra Ravindra Waghmare v. Indore MunicipalCorporation (2017) 1 SCC 667 : [2016] 9 SCR 373;Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure IndustrialCoke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 705 :[2007] 6 SCR 799; State of Gujarat v. Shantilal

AMangaldas & Ors., (1969) 1 SCC 509 : [1969] 3 SCR341; Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P)Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 517;Shrirampur Municipal Council v. SatyabhamabaiBhimaji Dawkher (2013) 5 SCC 627 : [2013] 2 SCR664 – relied on.B

1.4 After going through the report of the MonitoringCommittee and other reports which have been relied upon bythe Amicus Curiae, there is no scintilla of doubt that theMonitoring Committee in the past at any point of time did notseal any residential premises being used for residential purposes,Csituated on the private land nor it could have ordered demolition.The ‘caption’ of the various reports of Monitoring Committeei.e. “PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE MONITORINGCOMMITTEE FOR SEALING OF COMMERCIALESTABLISHMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES” makes itDabsolutely clear that Monitoring Committee did not entertain anydoubt about the purpose for which it was constituted. Apart fromthat, it was authorized by subsequent orders to act with respectto unauthorized construction on the public land and roads thattoo, which violated the MPD-2021. The alternative submissionwas raised that the Monitoring Committee acted bonafidely atEthe instance of the letter written by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.This Court is of the opinion that the Monitoring Committee couldnot have acted based on any such letter. It was not permissiblefor the Monitoring Committee to act in the matter. May be that itacted under some confusion created by the letter. Be that as it

Fmay. This Court does not want to go further into the matter ofbona fide. However, it is apparent that its action was beyond thepurpose for which it had been appointed. This Court is not goinginto the merits of the other submissions, whether the premisesare authorized or unauthorized, can be regularized or not,

compounding can be done, or whether there is any deviation made.GThe report of the Monitoring Committee and findings recordedby it are of no use as it had no such authority to go into the variousquestions. This Court did not appoint the Monitoring Committeeconcerning each and every residential building on private landnot misused for commercial purposes and to deal with the same.HIn the present matter, this Court itself is monitoring the matter

for limited public purpose. It has not taken away the powers ofstatutory authorities under the Act concerning other mattersexcept specified in the order. [Paras 89-91][788-G-H; 789-A-F]

1.5 Report No.149 and other reports submittedsubsequently in connection with Report No.149 and entire actionof sealing pursuant thereto is quashed. Notices issued directingdemolition where the matter was being heard by this Court andthe Monitoring Committee had no power to look into the matterand to take any action are also quashed. The property sealed asper Report No.149 be de-sealed, and possession be restored tothe owners forthwith. [Para 93][789-G-H]

A. R Antulay v. R. S. Nayak & Anr. (1988) 2 SCC 602 :[1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1; Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra(1995) 6 SCC 447 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 89; PremChand Garg v. Executing Commissioner U.P., AIR 1963SC 996 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 885; SCBA v. Union ofIndia (1998) 4 SCC 409 : [1998] 2 SCR 795; ArifHameed v. State of J & K, (1989) 2 Suppl. SCC 364 :[1989] 3 SCR 19 – referred to.

[2020] 10 S.C.R.

B[2013] 2 SCR 664relied onPara 87CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.4677 of 1985.

Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India

CWithW.P.(C) No. 266, 263, 264, 450, 464, 470, 569, 563, 610 Of 2006,W.P.(C) No. 212 & 229 Of 2008, W.P.(C) No. 144 of 2009 and SLP(C)No. 33454 Of 2018.

Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sanjay Jain, ASGs, AnilDGrover, AAG, Haryana, Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Advs.(ACs.), Wasim A. Qadri, Mukul Rohatgi, R. C. Mishra, Sanjiv Sen,Siddharth Luthra, Dhruv Mehta, Nalin Kohli, RakeshK. Khanna, Sr. Advs., A.D.N. Rao, (AC), D. L. Chidanada, Ms. SuhasiniSen, SS Rebello, Rajat Nair, Aankhi Ghosh, Rajesh Kr. Singh, Raj BahadurEYadav, B. V. Balram Das, Gaurav Mitra, Nikhil Rohotgi, Aman Gupta,Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ms. Ananya Mishra, Llin Saraswat, Dr. CharuMathur, Ms. Garima Prashad, G.S. Oberoi, Ms. Mrinalini Sengupta, AkrajKumar, Padmesh Mishra, Praveen Swarup, Ajay Bansal, Soumo Palit,Kanishik Chaudhary, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Noopur Singhal, RahulKhurana, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Ms. Anil Katiyar, D.N. Goburdhun, AlokFGupta, Naveen Kumar, Vijay Panjwani, Ejaz Maqbool, AbhimanyuBhandari, Ms. Roohina Dua, Cheitanya Madan, Ms. Akriti Chaubey,Ms. Aishwarya Sarkar, Ms. Shubhangni Jain, Pankaj Singhal, YashrajSingh Deora, Rahul Narayan, Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Nishit Agrawal, HarshMishra, Yashraj Singh Deora, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Sanjana Nangia,GMs. Abhilasha Bharti, Rohan Thawani, Hardeep Singh Anand, Ms. PrernaMehta, Tileshwar Prasad, Naresh Aditya Madhav, Ms. Rachana JoshiIssar, Siddhesh Kotwal, Divyansh Tiwari, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. KarunaNundy, Utsav Mukherjee, Dipanshu Joshi, Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. UshaNandini V., Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya (for M/s Saharya &Co.), Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma Ms. Sheena Taqui,HKshitij Vaibhav, Ms. Suwarna Dubey, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Anil Katiyar,D.N. Goburdhun, Naveen Kumar, Ejaz Maqbool, Rohan Kharbanda,Mushtaq Ahmad, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, V. K. Verma, S. Chandra Shekhar,Ms. Prasanthi Prasad, Prakash Kumar Singh, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal,Abhinav Mukerji, Surya Kant, M/S. Law Associates, Prashant Bhushan,Hardeep Singh Anand, M. C. Dhingra, Manu Shanker Mishra, PrakashKumar Singh, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, M/s. Parekh & Co., PravirChoudhary, Md. Farman, Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Tejaswi KumarPradhan, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Sanjeev Anand, Ms. UttaraBabbar, Abhay Kumar, Satyendra Kumar, Sunil Kumar Jain,Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Prashant Chaudhary, Suresh ChandraTripathy, P. Parmeswaran, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Amita Gupta,Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Devendra Singh, Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, NikileshRamachandran, D. N. Goburdhan, Abhijit Sengupta, Ms. Binu Tamta, T.L. Garg, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Surya Kant, Tarun Johri, Avijit Bhattacharjee,Ashwani Kumar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Sanjay Kapur, SudhirNaagar, A. Venayagam Balan, S. Chandra Shekhar, Shiv PrakashPandey, Ms. Manju Jetley, Harish Pandey, Shekhar Kumar, Annam D.N. Rao, Satish Aggarwal, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms.Prasanthi Prasad, Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Ajit Sharma, Ms. PrernaMehta, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, Harsh V. Surana,Raj Kamal, Himinder Lal, M. P. Shorawala, Arvind Gupta, Abhas Kumar,Vivek Narayan Sharma, Milind Kumar, Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Ajay KumarSingh, Gagan Gupta, M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, Yoginder Handoo,Jasmeet Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, T. Mahipal, M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rajat Joseph, RavinderKumar Yadav, Shekhar Prit Jha, O.P. Bhadani, Amarjit Singh Bedi, EjazMaqbool, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Anand Mishra, Ramesh KumarMishra, Ms. S. Janani, Ashok Anand, Karunakar Mahalik, Naveen R.Nath, Vishnu Sharma, M. M. Kashyap, A. Raghunath, Ms. K. V. BharathiUpadhyaya, Ms. Rajani Ohri Lal, Rakesh Mishra, Pranaya KumarMohapatra, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, SanjeevAnand, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Abhay Kumar, Satyendra Kumar, SunilKumar Jain, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Prashant Chaudhary, SureshChandra Tripathy, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Ms. RubySingh Ahuja, Devendra Singh, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Abhijit Sengupta,Ms. Binu Tamta, T. L. Garg, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Tarun Johri, AvijitBhattacharjee, Ashwani Kumar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, SanjayKapur, Sudhir Naagar, A. Venayagam Balan, S. Chandra Shekhar, Shiv

APrakash Pandey, Harish Pandey, Shekhar Kumar, Annam D.N. Rao,Satish Aggarwal, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. PrasanthiPrasad, Ms. Prerna Mehta, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury,Raj Kamal, Himinder Lal, Arvind Gupta, Vivek Narayan Sharma, MilindKumar, Ajay Kumar Singh, Gagan Gupta, M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates,Yoginder Handoo, Jasmeet Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prakash RanjanBNayak, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARUN MISHRA, J.

IN RE: ISSUE RELATINGTO JURISDICTION OFTHECMONITORING COMMITTEE

1. We are dealing with the authority of the “Monitoring Committeeto seal the residential premises on the private land” particularly whenthey are not being used for the “commercial purpose”. Whether theMonitoring Committee could have sealed these residential premises isDthe only question which we are examining in this order.

2. Report No.149 dated 2.4.2019 submitted by the MonitoringCommittee concerning specific unauthorized constructions allegedlycarried out in the Vasant Kunj and Rajokari area. These constructionswere not on public land. The respective persons owned the land, and theECommittee had submitted that letter was received from the SDM,Mehrauli on 22.2.2019 regarding unauthorized construction in VasantKunj, Delhi.

3. reply was filed on behalf of the residents that variousresidential premises were sealed where constructions were made longFback. There was no authority with the Monitoring Committee to sealpurely residential premises. It was pointed out that their structure was inconsonance with the Master Plan (MPD-2021) within Low DensityResidential Area (LDRA) modified vide Notification No.S.O.1199 (E)dated 10.5.2013 and Notification No.S.O.1744 (E) dated 18.6.2013.Reliance was placed on the various by laws/statutory provisions. It wasGsubmitted that the Monitoring Committee was not authorized to takeaction, and the residential premises should be de-sealed. It was alsopointed out that compounding has been made in some cases. Thestructure should not be demolished, given the provisions of the applicable

acts, by-laws, and policy. It has to be regularized for which prayer waspending before concerned authorities.

4. It was further contended that it is residential area, farmhouseswere notified as Low-Density Residential Areas, and the premises wereused as residential premises. They are in accord with MPD-2021.“Mehrauli” is an urbanized village. The Monitoring Committee was notempowered to seal the premises used for residential purposes. It waspermissible to raise the construction for the use of residence as providedunder Clause 4.4.3 of MPD-2021. Reliance has also been placed onNDRA Policy.

5. We have heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy andShri A.D.N. Rao, learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Rakesh Khanna, ShriSiddharth Luthra, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri R.C. Mishra, Shri Nalin Kohli,Shri Wasim A. Qadri, Shri Sanjiv Sen, learned senior counsel, Shri TusharMehta, learned Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Addl.Solicitor General, Shri D.N. Goburdhan, Shri Naveen Kumar, Ms. KarunaNundy, learned counsel and other learned counsel appearing for theparties.

6. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae with his usual vigoururged that Writ Petition (C) No.4677 of 1985 was filed in this Courtregarding environment in Delhi, shifting of heavy industries, noxiousindustries, stopping of all mining in Aravali hills in and around Delhiincluding demolition of colonies built on forest land, misuse of premises(misuse includes unauthorized construction), i.e., construction withoutsanction, lack of civic amenities and the need for their upgradation, etc.This Court appointed the Monitoring Committee in the year 2006. Variousorders have been referred to submit that the Monitoring Committee isentitled to inspect premises in which any illegal construction has beenmade. This Court restored its power on 6.12.2017. Special Task Forcewas set up to ensure that the order of the court and applicable bylawswere implemented. LDRA Policy in derogation of the MPD-2021 isnotified on 7.2.2007.

7. Learned Amicus attracted the attention of this Court to ordersdated 24.4.2018, 8.5.2018, 15.5.2018, 18.5.2018, 24.5.2018, and variousother orders and certain reports, which we will refer later. He has pointedout that the Special Task Force was constituted on 25.4.2018. TheMonitoring Committee has the power to seal unauthorized construction,

Aand regularization thereof cannot be allowed. He has attracted theattention of this Court to the O.M. dated 23.5.2018 issued by theGovernment of India containing an action plan for monitoring of allconstruction activities in Delhi and fixing responsibility in case of violationsof MPD-2021for unauthorized encroachments and other illegalconstruction activities.B

8. Learned Amicus Curiae also argued that the MonitoringCommittee is authorized to see construction with sanction plan orconstruction contrary to sanction plan. Alternatively, it was submitted bythe learned Amicus that in case this Court comes to the conclusion thatthe Monitoring Committee was not entrusted with the power concerningCresidential premises when they were not being used for “commercialpurpose” as the power of sealing was exercised (as per Report No.149)bonafidely on the request made by the SDM and any order, which maybe passed and ordered to be prospective in operation.

9. Ms. Ashwariya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor GeneralDappearing on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Environmentsubmitted that the Monitoring Committee is entitled to inspect the premiseswhere encroachments are there on public land. Attention has been invitedto this Court’s order dated 3.1.2012, which was recalled vide judgmentand order dated 15.12.2017. This Court on 15.12.2017 ordered theEMonitoring Committee to continue to work as it was doing before 3.1.2012.This Court constituted the Monitoring Committee on 23.4.2006 for thelimited purpose of addressing the use of “residential premises forcommercial purpose”. Despite the limited mandate to the MonitoringCommittee, it illegally sealed other premises. Special Task Force hasbeen constituted as per order dated 24.4.2018 to remove theFencroachments on public roads, public streets, and pedestrian street,and it was for the Monitoring Committee to suggest to the Special TaskForce the areas where immediate action was required to be takenconcerning aforesaid aspect. The Special Task Force was constitutedunder section 5(3) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. Thus, it is aGstatutory body. It has the task of overseeing the implementation of theapplicable laws regarding illegal constructions, encroachment on publicland, public parks, parking places, roads, pavements, etc. Special TaskForce is taking adequate action as and when violation is reported.

10. Shri D.N. Goburdhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofHthe Government of NCT of Delhi, has raised the following arguments:

a. That the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short, “theDMC Act”) is complete code by itself. The Delhi Municipal Corporationis statutory body which cannot be deprived of its functions. He hasalso attracted the attention of this Court to the Building Regulations andto sections 334 and 335 of the DMC Act relating to sanctions, additions,alterations, and its power to take action in appropriate cases. He submittedthat the DMC Act is complete code by itself as it provides how thesealing is to be done, when it is to be enforced, and in case of its failure,the remedy is provided under section 490. Statutory appeals are providedunder the DMC Act to the Appellate Tribunal and the Administrator. Acomplete regulatory mechanism is provided for the sealing operation ofproperties. Thus, it cannot be deprived to exercise its powers conferredby the Monitoring Committee under the DMC Act.b. This Court appointed the Monitoring Committee on 16.2.2006only to prevent misuse of residential premises for commercial use andnot with respect to residential premises used for residential purposes.Once the Monitoring Committee does the sealing, no statutory appeallies before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under section 347(A) and347(B) of the Act. The Statutory Appeals were transferred to theMonitoring Committee, which ordered the sealing of the premises. Theprinciple of natural justice was thus thrown to winds. The order appointingthe Monitoring Committee was for limited purpose and power was passedunder Article 142 of the Constitution. The order too deserves to berecalled in view of the decisions of this Court in A. R Antulay vs. R. S.Nayak & Anr. (1988) 2 SCC 602, Bonkya vs. State of Maharashtra(1995) 6 SCC 447, Prem Chand Garg v. Executing CommissionerU.P., AIR 1963 SC 996 and SCBA vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC409.

c. That the executive, legislative and judicial functions of thestatutory bodies are demarcated under the Constitution, and statutoryprovisions cannot be taken away by the Monitoring Committee. Relianceis placed on Arif Hameed v. State of J & K, (1989) Supp. [2] SCC 364.

d. The legislature has conferred statutory power to seal or demolishon the Municipal Corporation, and Monitoring Committee cannot exerciseits power in total abrogation to the powers of the statutory bodies.

11. Shri Rakesh Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing onbehalf of the LAC’s Federation of Delhi, submitted that this Court on

A15.12.2017 passed judgment and order with respect to sealing of theresidential premises used for commercial purposes in Delhi. TheMonitoring Committee has exercised power unauthorizedly. The orderswere passed in order to stop the unauthorized commercial use of theland earmarked for residential purposes, as provided in the Zonal Plan.The Monitoring Committee without power sealed the premises, whichBwere in the commercial area for commercial use. He has attracted ourattention to certain provisions of the Master Plan. Concerning theaforesaid aspects, we do not propose to deal with it in the instant order.We propose to deal only with the limited question whether the MonitoringCommittee is empowered by this Court to seal the residential premises.CWe leave the question of commercial plots raised by Shri Khanna to bedealt with separately.

12. Shri Khanna further argued that the Monitoring Committeehad no power to seal purely residential premises. He has attracted ourattention to this Court’s order by which it was constituted, and variousDother judgments and orders passed in this regard. He has argued thatthe Monitoring Committee kept quiet, pursuant to the query made by thisCourt on 7.5.2019 as to whether in past, before Report No.149 wassubmitted, the Monitoring Committee sealed the residential premiseswhich were not being used for commercial purposes. No past instancewas given by the Monitoring Committee regarding sealing of residentialEpremises used for residential purposes, particularly when it was not madeon public land. He has also argued with respect to LDRA Policy and asto permissible regularization.

13. Shri Nalin Kohli, learned senior counsel has taken this Courtthrough various orders passed by this Court and the Report of theFMonitoring Committee to submit that this Court appointed the MonitoringCommittee for the limited purpose of checking commercial misuse ofthe residential properties. At no point in time, this Court authorized theMonitoring Committee to seal the residential premises used for theresidential purposes that too situated on private land. Thus, the action ofGsealing such houses is unwarranted and illegal.

14. Shri Naveen Kumar, learned counsel, has invited our attentionto the order dated 7.5.2019. This Court sought the Monitoring Committeeto specify with respect to its power conferred by the court and secondly,any prior example where the Monitoring Committee sealed such premises.HThe Monitoring Committee referred to the orders dated 23.11.2006,

12.2.2007, 9.3.2007, and 10.4.2007 to justify its action. It was arguedthat the orders relied upon by the Committee are not at all relevant forsealing of such premises. The Monitoring Committee was appointedonly to prevent commercial misuse of the residential properties. Thesubsequent orders indicate that it was authorized to deal with theencroachment and unauthorized colonies on public land.

15. On behalf of the incumbents whose property has been sealedas per the report No.149, similar submissions have been raised. TheMonitoring Committee was given limited powers, which was divestedon 30.4.2012. Later vide order dated 6.12.2017, the MonitoringCommittee was restored with the power it exercised earlier. SpecialTask Force had been constituted on 25.4.2018 pursuant to the orderpassed by this Court.

16. Ms. Karuna Nundy, learned counsel, argued that under Article300-A of the Constitution, person cannot be deprived of its propertyotherwise than the due procedure of law, is supported by series ofjudgments of this Court. When the Monitoring Committee is notempowered to deal with such residential premises, it could not haveacted. The detailed procedure is provided under the DMC Act alongwith the Appellate Tribunal under sections 347A and 347B of the DMCAct. The Monitoring Committee, unless specifically authorized by thisCourt, could not violate the procedure under the DMC Act. Reliancehas been placed by the learned counsel on the various decisions to bereferred to later.

(i) Particularly when the Monitoring Committee is not empoweredto take any such action, no appeal lies against the action of the MonitoringCommittee. Only it hears representation. Not even the High Court caninterfere in the functioning of the Monitoring Committee.

(ii) Even with respect to the encroachment on public roads, publicstreets, and pedestrian streets, the Special Task Force is authorized totake action. Thus, the Monitoring Committee’s power after theconstitution of Special Task Force is further restricted, and it is for theMonitoring Committee to suggest to the Special Task Force with respectto the encroachment on the public land, roads, and public places.

(iii) The range of remedies available to the owner of the propertyin the residential premises’ occupation cannot be deprived of by theMonitoring Committee. The provisions regarding demolition and stoppage

Aof buildings and works in certain cases are contained in section 343 ofthe DMC Act, section 345 deals with power of the Commissioner torequire alteration of the work; section 347A provides for an appeal beforethe Appellate Tribunal, section 347B deals with appeals against certainorders and notices issued under the Act and section 347E deals with thebar of jurisdiction of courts. Once the statutory right is conferred, itBcannot be dealt with by the Monitoring Committee until and unless it isauthorized.

DISCUSSION:

17. The Monitoring Committee was appointed and empoweredCby this Court to take action within the powers conferred. In the teeth ofvarious statutes, it would act strictly within the four corners of the powersconferred on it by this Court.

18. When we consider the various orders passed by this Courtfrom time to time, before the constitution of the Monitoring Committee,Dwe find that this Court at no point in time has empowered the MonitoringCommittee to take action with respect to residential premises not usedfor commercial purpose. This Court initially passed an order on 7.5.2004and constituted the Monitoring Committee comprising of (i) ChiefSecretary of Delhi, (ii) Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (iii) Commissioner,Municipal Corporation of Delhi and (iv) Vice-Chairman of DelhiEDevelopment Authority. It was ordered that Monitoring Committee wouldbe responsible for the stoppage of illegal industrial activities. The orderdated 7.5.2004 is extracted hereunder:

“Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal pronounced thejudgment of the Court issuing directions in terms of the signedFjudgment.

Monitoring Committee comprising (i) Chief Secretary ofDelhi (ii) Commissioner of Police, Delhi (iii) Commissioner,Municipal Corporation of Delhi and, (iv) Vice-Chairman of DelhiDevelopment Authority has been appointed. This Committee wouldGbe responsible for stoppage of illegal industrial activity. It would,however, be open to the aforesaid members of the MonitoringCommittee to appoint responsible officers subordinate to them tooversee and ensure compliance of the directions contained in thejudgment.

The first Progress Report by the Committee shall be filedby 31st August, 2004 and thereafter it shall be filed at least oncein period of every two months.”

19. (i) The Monitoring Committee was constituted by this Courtvide judgment and order dated 16.2.2006 in M.C. Mehta v. Union ofIndia & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 399. Following is the relevant portion:

“1.In respect of large number of immovable properties throughoutDelhi, flagrant violations of various laws including municipal laws,master plan and other plans besides environmental laws have beenengaging the attention of this Court for number of years. With aview to secure the implementation of laws and protect fundamentalrights of the citizens, various orders were passed from time totime.

2. This Court has constitutional duty to protect the fundamentalrights of Indian citizens. What happens when violators and/orabettors of the violations are those, who have been entrusted bylaw with duty to protect these rights? The task becomes difficultand also requires urgent intervention by court so that the rule oflaw is preserved and people may not lose faith in it, finding violationsat the hands of supposed implementers. The problem is not of theabsence of law, but of its implementation.

3. Considering such large-scale flagrant violations, this Court hadto prioritise as to which violations may be taken up first and thenissue appropriate directions. In this view, at first instance, directionswere issued in respect of shifting of hazardous and noxiousindustries out of Delhi. Directions were also issued for shifting ofheavy and large industries as also some extensive industries. Forshifting polluting industries had to be given topmost priority. Later,directions were issued for shifting of other extensive industriesconsidering the continued unauthorised use contrary to masterplan and zonal plan, by those industries as well as some otherindustries continuing in residential/non-conforming areas.

5. With regard to commercial use of premises in residential areas,it has been more than three years i.e. 30-9-2002 when the orderwas made directing respondents to file reply. In fact, the questionof misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes wastaken up even earlier as is apparent from the orders dated 31-7-

A2001 and 20-2-2002. By order dated 31-7-2001 passed in NewsItem AQFMY v. Central Pollution Control Board[1] the Courtdirected that:

“MCD will also inform this Court in the affidavit to befiled as to why no requisite action has been taken for stoppingBthe gross misuse of buildings in the residential areas forcommercial purposes and in the construction of commercialbuildings in residential areas where only residential usage ispermitted.”

6. Again on 20-2-2002, the order dated 31-7-2001 was reiteratedCin the following terms:

“MCD is also directed to file within four weeks fromtoday an affidavit indicating as to what it intends to do forstopping the misuse of the buildings in the residential areaswhich are being used for commercial purposes as has beenDdirected by this Court’s order dated 31-7-2001. If no affidavitis filed, the explanation in respect thereof should be given tothe Court by the Municipal Commissioner.”

11. By the impugned judgment dated 31-5-2002, disposing of theaforenoted writ petition and other connected matters, Full BenchEof the High Court came to the conclusion that neither under theDMC Act nor under the Delhi Development Act, was there anypower to seal property for its misuse, inter alia, holding that thepower of sealing of premises is drastic as by reason of such sealing,a person could become homeless, thus, affecting his human orfundamental rights and that the power of sealing in relation toFmisuse has been intentionally excluded from the provisions of thetwo Acts. Later, some other matters were also decided by theHigh Court following the Full Bench decision. Those judgmentsare also under challenge.”

(emphasis supplied)

Following questions were framed by this Court for consideration:

“13. The questions to be determined are:

A. Whether MCD under the DMC Act has power to seal thepremises in case of its misuser?

H1 W.P. No.725 of 1994 dated 31-7-2001

B. Whether DDA, under the Delhi Development Act, has alsosimilar power of sealing or not?

C. Directions to be issued in respect of residential propertiesused illegally for commercial purposes.

14. In these matters, we are considering only the issue of misuser.We are not considering the issue of unauthorised constructions.”

(emphasis supplied)

(ii) It is apparent that the only question for consideration of thisCourt was the misuse of the residential premises for illegal or commercialpurposes. In paragraph 14 (quoted above), this Court made it clear thatit did not consider the issue of unauthorized constructions. This Courtconsidered the plight of the residential areas in para 33 of the judgment,where it noted large-scale conversion of residential premises forcommercial use, thus:

“33. Keeping future needs in view, experts prepare master plans.Perusal of the Delhi Master Plans, 1962 and 2001 shows whatwere plan projections. At the time of planning, the experts in thefield of town planningtake into account various aspects, such as,healthy living, environment, lung space need, land use intensity,areas where the residential houses are to be built and where thecommercial buildings are to be located, need of householdindustries, etc. Provision for household industries in residentialareas does not mean converting residential houses into commercialshops. It only means permitting activities of household industry ina part of residential property. It does not mean that residentialproperties can be used for commercial and trading activitiesandsale and purchase of goods. Master plan contemplates shops indistrict centres, community centres, local shopping centres, etc.and not in residential areas. Be that as it may, for the present, weare not considering the cases of small shops opened in residentialhouses for catering to day-to-day basic needs, but are considering-largescale conversion, in flagrant violation of laws, of residentialpremises for commercial use.”

(emphasis supplied)

(iii) The court further considered that none has the right, humanor fundamental, to violate the law with immunity and claim any right touse building for purpose other than authorized, thus:

EFG

A“35. In the impugned judgment, while dealing with the provisionsof the layout plan, it was observed that the provisions for user“are only regulatory in nature”. While dealing with the user, theHigh Court observed that “the power, whereby and whereunderthe basic human rights or the fundamental rights conferred upona person is taken away, must be specifically conferred by statute”.BThe provisions of user may be regulatory but all the same, theyare mandatory and binding. In fact, almost all the planningprovisions are regulatory. The violations of the regulatory provisionson massive scale can result in plans becoming merely scraps ofpaper. That is the ground reality in the capital of the country.CNone has any right, human or fundamental, to violate the law withimmunity and claim any right to use building for purpose otherthan authorised. Further, the words “unless the context otherwiserequires”in Section 331 of the DMC Act are of no consequencefor determining the point in issue as the context herein does notprovide otherwise for the present purposes. It does not provideDthat the power of sealing under Section 345-A cannot be exercisedin case of misuser. In view of the clear language of Section 345-A, we are also unable to sustain the view of the High Court thataction under Section 345-A can be taken only when there existsorder of demolition under Section 343 or an order under sub-sectionE(1) of Section 344. The conclusion of the High Court that actionunder Section 345-A can be taken only when there exists an orderof demolition under Section 343, or on passing of an order undersub-section (1) of Section 344, and in no other contingency cannotbe accepted in view of the clear provision of Section 345-A thataction can be taken even before or after an order is made underFthose provisions.”

(emphasis supplied)

(iv) The court eventually issued directions in respect of otherresidential properties used illegally for commercial purposes, thus:

G“47. In special leave petitions and Civil Appeals Nos.608-11 of2003 challenge is to the judgments of the High Court disposing ofwrit petitions in terms of law laid down by the Full Bench.

50. In respect of CA No.608 of 2003, MCD issued to therespondents, show-cause notice dated 1-8-2000 under SectionH345-A read with Sections 347, 343 and 344 of the DMC Act stating

that Property No. 39, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar III was beingmisused in the name and style of “Jagdish Store”. In reply dated15-9-2000, it was, inter alia, stated that MCD itself has beenallowing non-residential activities in residential areas under specialscheme, without, however, giving any details or filing any documentin support thereof. Further, we asked the learned counsel for therespondents to place on record the plan for the construction ofthe building which may have been sanctioned so as to ascertainwhether the sanction was for construction of the residentialproperty or commercial property. The plan has not been filed.The reasons are not far to seek. One of the simple methods forascertaining that there is misuser or not, is to examine thesanctioned plan.

51. At this stage, it would be useful to notice letter dated 28-8-2000 sent by the Ministry of Urban Development to theCommissioner, MCD, Vice-Chairman, DDA and other authoritiesconveying the deep concern of Parliament Consultative Committeeover the rising menace of unauthorised construction, suspectedconnivance of the staff of the different authorities in the matterand requesting the authorities to take strong and prompt actionand suggesting ten measures for strict enforcement. The letterreads as under:

No. J-13036/3/96-DDIIB

Government of India

Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.Dated: 28-8-2000

1. Shri P.S. Bhatnagar,

Chief Secretary,

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi,

Delhi.

[2020] 10 S.C.R.

2. Shri P.K. Ghosh,

Vice-Chairman,

Delhi Development Authority,

Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.

3. Shri S.P. Aggarwal,

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Town Hall, Delhi.

4. Shri B.P. Misra,

Chairperson,

New Delhi Municipal Committee,

Palika Kendra, New Delhi.

5. The Development Commissioner,

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi,

Town Hall, New Delhi.

Subject: Unauthorised encroachment and illegalconstructions in Delhi

Sir,

I am directed to say that the menace of illegal encroachment/unauthorised construction in Delhi has been considered by theGovernment of Indiaat its highest level and it has been decided toeliminate this menace with firm hand. You are, therefore,requested to take strong and prompt action against all illegalconstructions/unauthorised encroachments and also againstmisuses of land in violation of the provisions of the master plan ofDelhi. The following measures are particularly required to beenforced strictly:

(i) All illegal constructions should be demolished, notcosmetically but in toto.

(ii) The cost of demolition should be recovered from theillegal builders within 15 days of demolition. In case of non-payment within 15 days, the amount due should be recoveredas arrears of land revenue.

(iii) In all cases of illegal constructions, prosecutionshould invariably be launched against builders under the DelhiMunicipal Corporation Act, the Delhi Development Act, theNew Delhi Municipal Council Act, etc.and the cases followedvigorously with the police authorities/courts.

(iv) Wherever the property is on lease, action should betaken under the terms and conditions of lease agreement andre-entry effected within the shortest permissible period undersuch lease agreement. After re-entry, physical possession ofthe property should be taken by invoking the provisions of thePublic Premises Eviction Act and damages collectedimmediately. The rates of damages/misuse charges should bethe same as per the formula followed by the L&DO andapproved by the Ministry of Urban Development.

(v) In case of DDA flats, where constructions have comeup beyond the condonable limits, cancellation of allotment shouldbe carried out in addition to the demolition of the additionalconstruction. Orders in respect of condonable and non-condonable items are being issued separately.

(vi) In cases, where after demolition, reconstruction isdone, personal responsibility of the officer-in-charge should befixed and departmental action taken against him.

(vii) In cases where illegal constructions have taken placeon rural agricultural lands, action under the provisions of theDelhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, should also be taken and suchlands should be taken over as per provisions of the Delhi LandReforms Act. Action in this respect should be taken as soon asthe plots are cut by the colonisers and construction done in theshape of boundary walls, etc. In other words, constructionshould be nipped in the bud. If it comes up, it should bedemolished immediately. Action in this respect should also betaken by the local agencies concerned/DDA as per the bye-laws pertaining to layout/service plans, etc.

(viii) In all cases where party obtains stay/status quoorders, prompt action to get the stay order vacated should betaken and higher court moved, wherever necessary.

A(ix) All Senior Field Officers should be asked to carryout physical inspection of the area under their charge and theSupervising Officer should also make surprise checks to ensurethat the subordinate staff takes immediate action to check/demolish unauthorised construction. Deterrent action shouldalso be taken against the subordinate staff such as BuildingBInspectors, Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers, etc. who donot take prompt action.

(x) Field Officers should be asked to maintain field diariesand submit them to the Supervisory Officer regularly.

C2. It is also requested that monthly report should be sent to theMinistry of Urban Development by the 5th of each succeedingmonth.

3. In this connection, it may be noted that both Parliament and theParliament Consultative Committee have expressed deep concern,Dthrough questions and interpolations, over the rising menace ofunauthorised constructions in Delhi and the suspected connivanceof the staff of the different authorities in the matter. flying squadhas been constituted in the Ministry and if, as result of findingsof this squad, it is found that the subordinate staff has not done itsduty or not carried out the aforesaid instructions, strict actionEagainst the subordinate/supervisory staff would be taken by theGovernment.

Yours faithfully,

(Dr. Nivedita P. Haran)

Joint Secretary to the Government of India

Copy for information and necessary action to:

1. Deputy CVO, Ministry of UD&PA,

GNirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. L&DO, Ministry of UD&PA, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. DG(W), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

(N.L. Upadhyay)

53.Now, we revert to the task of implementation. Despite itsdifficulty, this Court cannot remain mute spectator when the-violations also affect the environment and healthy living of lawabiders. The enormity of the problem which, to great extent, isthe doing of the authorities themselves, does not mean that abeginning should not be made to set things right. If the entiremisuser cannot be stopped at one point of time because of itsextensive nature, then it has to be stopped in phased manner,beginning with major violators. There has to be will to do it. Wehave hereinbefore noted in brief the orders made in the last somany years but it seems the same has had no effect on theauthorities. The things cannot be permitted to go on in this mannerforever. On one hand, various laws are enacted, master plans areprepared by expert planners, provision is made in the plans also totackle the problem of existing unauthorised constructions andmisusers and, on the other hand, such illegal activities go onunabated openly under the gaze of everyone, without having anyrespect and regard for law and other citizens. We have noticedabove the complaints of some of the residents in respect of suchillegalities. For the last number of years even the High Court hasbeen expressing similar anguish in the orders made in large numberof cases. We may briefly notice some of those orders.”

(emphasis supplied)

(v) The court focused on the misuse of the property and furtherobserved in para 61 regarding misuse thus:

“61. Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of the HighCourt and this Court, the enforcement of the laws and theimplementations of the orders are utterly lacking. If the laws arenot enforced and the orders of the courts to enforce and implementthe laws are ignored, the result can only be total lawlessness. It is,therefore, necessary to also identify and take appropriate actionagainst officers responsible for this state of affairs. Such blatantmisuse of properties at large-scale cannot take place withoutconnivance of the officers concerned. It is also source ofcorruption. Therefore, action is also necessary to check corruption,nepotism and total apathy towards the rights of the citizens. Thosewho own the properties that are misused have also impliedresponsibility towards the hardship, inconvenience, suffering

Acaused to the residents of the locality and injuries to third parties.It is, therefore, not only the question of stopping the misuser butalso making the owners at default accountable for the injuriescaused to others. Similar would also be the accountability of errantofficers as well since, prima facie, such large-scale misuser, inviolation of laws, cannot take place without the active connivanceBof the officers. It would be for the officers to show what effectivesteps were taken to stop the misuser.”

(vi) Ultimately, the court has passed the following order whileappointing the Monitoring Committee:

“69. Having held that the Commissioner of MCD has power underthe DMC Act to seal premises in case of its misuser, we issue thefollowing directions for taking immediate steps to seal residential

premises being used for commercial purpose:

1. MCD shall within 10 days give wide publicity in theleading newspapers directing major violations on main roads (someinstances of such violators and roads have been notedhereinbefore) to stop misuser on their own, within the period of30 days.

2. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/occupier to fileEwithin 30 days an affidavit with the Commissioner of MCD statingthat the misuser has been stopped.

3. In case misuser is not stopped, sealing of the premisesshall commence after 30 days, from the date of public notice, firsttaking up the violations on roads which are 80 ft wide and more.FAll authorities are directed to render full assistance and cooperation.After expiry of 30 days from the date of public notice, electricityand water supply shall be disconnected.

4. Details of the roads and the violations shall also be placedon the website by MCD and copies also sent to Resident WelfareAssociations of the area which should be involved in the processGof sealing of misuser. The Commissioner of MCD shall file anaffidavit, within two weeks, in terms of directions contained inthis judgment, whereafter directions for constitution of themonitoring committee would be issued. The sealing would beeffected by the officers authorised by the Commissioner of MCDHin consultation with the monitoring committee.

5. The appropriate directions for action, if any, against theofficers responsible for the misuse and for payment ofcompensation by them and by violators would be issued after themisuser is stopped.

6. None will tamper with the seals. Any tampering withseal will be sternly dealt with. Tampering with seal will includeopening another entrance for use of premises.

7. It would be open to the owner/occupier to approach theCommissioner for removal of the seal on giving undertaking thatthe premises would be put to only authorised use.

8. Particulars of cases where violators may have obtainedorders of stay will be filed in this Court by MCD.

9. MCD shall file monthly status report as to action takenby 15th of each month commencing from 10-4-2006.

10. In case misuser is not stopped in the premises involvedin the civil appeals and special leave petitions, subject to what isstated in this judgment, MCD will take immediate steps to sealthose premises soon after expiry of 30 days.”

(emphasis supplied)

It is clear from the above-mentioned order dated 16.2.2006 inM.C. Mehta v. Union of India (supra) that this Court noted unauthorizedconstruction but appointed the Monitoring Committee to put restrainton the misuse of the residential premises for the unauthorized/commercialpurpose. Pursuant to the order dated 16.2.2006, the Monitoring Committeewas formed on 24.3.2006.

20. The court again emphasized that its order should be carriedout in letter and spirit in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of Indiareported in (2006) 3 SCC 429 passed on 24.3.2006 thus:

“4.In order to oversee the implementation of the law, namely,sealing of offending premises in terms of the letter and spirit ofthis Court’s directions, it is necessary to appoint MonitoringCommitteeinstead of leaving any discretion with the officers ofMCD. Accordingly, we appoint Monitoring Committeecomprising of Mr K.J. Rao, Former Advisor to the ElectionCommissioner, Mr Bhure Lal, Chairman, EPCA and Major

AGeneral (Retd.) Som Jhingan. We direct that all necessary facilitiesshall be supplied by MCD to the members of the MonitoringCommittee, including the facility of transport, secretarial services,honorarium, etc.

9. IAs Nos.1921, 1922 and 1923 have been filed by threeBassociations whereas IAs Nos.1918-19 have been filed by anindividual business house. The applicant of IA No.1919 has filedan affidavit giving an undertaking to this Court to stop the misuserwithin the time granted by this Court. The applications filed onbehalf of the associations state that in the event of this Courtgranting time, they would ensure that the benefit of time is givenConly to those who file individual affidavit and undertaking as perthe directions of this Court. In the order dated 16-2-2006, theCourt has already pointed out the extent, nature and magnitude ofthe contravention of various laws. Be that as it may, we grant notonly to the applicant associations or their members but to othersDtoo, time to stop the misuser up to 30-6-2006 subject to everyindividual claiming such benefit filing affidavitstating that (1) onor before 30-6-2006, misuser shall be stopped and no furtherextension on any ground whatsoever shall be asked for, (2) givingan undertaking to the effect that violation of condition of notstopping the misuser by 30-6-2006 would subject him/her to theEoffence of perjury and contempt of court for violation of the orderof the Court. The benefit will be available only to those who filethe affidavit with MCD on or before 28-3-2006.”

(emphasis supplied)

FThis Court directed to prevent misuse of the property inaccordance with the previous order to mean that residential premises/area should not be used for commercial purposes. large number ofreports of the Monitoring Committee carried ‘Caption’ “REPORT OFTHE MONITORING COMMITTEE, SEALING OF THECOMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN RESIDENTIALGPREMISES”.

21. In Report No.8, the Monitoring Committee reported liquorshops in convenient/local shopping centers located in residential areasand other professional activities. This Court passed an order on18.10.2006 regarding Report No.8 thus:H

“I.A.No.1983:

In view of the order passed in I.A.No.1980 above, this applicationstands disposed of.

Report No.8 of the Monitoring Committee:

We have perused the 8th report of the Monitoring Committeedated 17th October, 2006.

The recommendation contained in para 1 of the report, exceptlast three lines, are accepted. The said three lines read as under:

“In addition, it is presumed by the Monitoring Committee that smallshops will also be allowed in & category of colonies as perthe Hon’ble Court’s order dated 29.09.2006.”

The learned Solicitor General, on instructions, states thatthe Government is not contemplating to allow small shops incolonies of category & B. In this view of the stand, the afore-quoted recommendation is not accepted.

In respect of para 4 of the report relating to the sealing ofliquor shops in convenient/local shopping centres located inresidential areas, we find no ground to direct sealing of liquorshops. The convenient/local shopping centres are in the commercialareas earmarked in residential areas and there does not appear tobe any legal impediment for the liquor trade to be conducted fromthe said commercial areas. However, the liquor trade cannot bepermitted to be carried on in mixed land use since the first flooronwards are expected to be used for residential purposes onlyand thus liquor trade in such residential areas cannot be allowedto be continued. This part of recommendation in para 4 of thereport is accepted.Regarding recommendations 5 and 6 regarding professionalactivities and the basement are concerned, learned SolicitorGeneral states that since the matter is under consideration of theGovernment, for the present, the sealing in respect thereof maynot be continued. Learned counsel further states that it will takeabout six weeks to decide these matters. Further, it may be notedthat in para 21(v)(e) of our order dated 29th September, 2006, forillustrative purpose, only four professions were mentioned but it isclear that other professions are not excluded. The term

‘professionals’ has been made inclusive by use of the word‘including’. In view of the above, for the present, sealing need notcontinue in respect of the activities mentioned in para 5 and 6 ofthe report of the Monitoring Committee.

The recommendation in regard to desealing, contained inpara 7 of the report, is also accepted.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to file itsreport/response, within four weeks, in regard to what is stated bythe Monitoring Committee in para 8, namely, large number ofbuilding basement, lower basement, ground floor + four floorsChaving come up in blatant violation of the Building Bye Laws.

In view of the time having been extended as above, thematter, instead of November, 2006, be now listed in February,2007.

The Monitoring Committee is directed to supply copy ofDeach of its report to learned Solicitor General and learned counselfor the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.”

(emphasis supplied)

It is apparent from the report that it was with respect to misuse ofthe residential premises for commercial purpose and unauthorizedEconstructions on public land.

22. On 15.11.2006, this Court exempted ration shops and cyclerepair shops running in residential premises from sealing. Report No.12was considered with respect to the misuse of residential premises forcommercial purposes.F

23. This Court passed further order on 23.11.2006, which wasalso with respect to misuse of the premises. Undertakings were filed tothe effect that they have stopped commercial activities in the residentialpremises. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.11.2006 is extractedhereunder:G

“Subject to what we note hereinafter, persons who haveeither earlier or now have stopped commercial activity in termsof the undertakings/ affidavits filed but are covered by the twonotifications above-noted, having regard to the peculiar facts andcircumstances, are temporarily relieved of the undertakings and

placed at par with other covered by Direction No.3 of the orderdated 29[th] September, 2006. The conditions stipulated in the saidDirection No.3 would be applicable to such traders/ professionals.The present order is in continuation of the orders passed on 29[th]September, 2006, 18[th] October, 2006, 6[th] November, 2006 and15[th] November, 2006.

However, thirty four establishments mentioned in Annexure‘A’ will not be entitled to above concession. The MonitoringCommittee can verify ad if they have not ceased commercialactivity, the premises shall be sealed and it be ensured thatcommercial activity is not carried on by them.

*** *** ***

In Paragraph (4), it has been noticed that, on surprisecheck, some buildings were noticed on which certain sofas wereput on each floor to give it residential look even through no oneappears to be living in it and the impression was that though buildingwas sanctioned only for residential purposes and no commercialactivity was going on but fresh commercial activity maycommence. According to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, asnoted therein, where commercial activity has not yet commenced,building can be booked for violation of building plans. Directionsare sought that Municipal Corporation of Delhi be asked to issuepublic notice that no commercial activity/ fresh commercial activityshall be allowed without first getting the building plans approvedand on registration and payment of conversion and parking charges.Example of one such stretch of road is mentioned in Paragraph(4) from Mool Chand Hospital crossing to Ashram Chowk. It is tobe made clear that no fresh commercial activity in buildingsanctioned for residential purposes can be allowed and on violationbeing noticed, it would be the personal liability of the DeputyCommission of the concerned zone to take appropriate action. Itwill also be the personal liability of the concerned Station HouseOfficer to inform the concerned officers in the MunicipalCorporation of Delhi. If, despite that, the commercial activity isnoticed, these officers shall have to be held personally liable forthe consequences. Simply booking building for violation of buildingplans on paper has proved to be totally ineffective. There arethousands of buildings which have been booked by the Municipal

ACorporation of Delhi in the last number of years but on paper onlywithout any action. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, assuggested in Paragraph (4), shall issue public notice in consultationwith the Monitoring Committee.”

It is apparent from the order that the report and the order pertainedBto misuse of the residential premises for commercial purposes.

24. The order dated 12.2.2007 was in relation to the stopping ofthe sealing by the Monitoring Committee at the instance of the MunicipalCorporation of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority until furtherorders. It was to be operative only concerning those premises coveredCunder the MPD-2021 and not for those which were not covered by theMaster Plan. Following order was passed on 12.2.2007:

“….In view of this arrangement, the interim order stopping sealingby the Monitoring Committee with the assistance of MCD andDDA shall remain operative until further orders. This order shallDbe operative only in respect of those premises which are coveredby the Master Plan, 2021 and not for those which are not coveredby the Master Plan. ….”

25. The order dated 9.3.2007 was passed to comply with the orderdated 12.2.2007. Following order was passed by this Court on 9.3.2007:E“We have perused the Report No.31 of the Monitoring Committee.It needs no reiteration that our order dated 12.2.2007 shall becarried out to its logical end. Needless to say all authoritiesconcerned shall ensure compliance of our order.”

It is apparent from the order dated 9.3.2007 that the order is inFconsonance with the said report, and the report clarifies that it was forcommercial activities and mixed land use. The Monitoring Committeeitself sought permission for continuation of sealing of the portion of thecommercial establishment in the residential areas, which were not coveredby MPD-2021. Thus, the confusion sought to be created based on MPD-2021 is absolutely unjustified. The order dated 10.4.2007 is an interimGorder stopping sealing by the Monitoring Committee. This Court did notauthorize the Monitoring Committee to seal the residential propertiesbeing used for residential purposes. The order is of no relevance todecide the question of the authority of the Monitoring Committee.

26. On IA No.22, this Court in its order dated 10.4.2007 consideredHReport No.34, contents of which are placed by following orders:

“We are shocked to find that in spite of our earlier orders,there has been total sense of non-cooperation exhibited by theM.C.D. and the police officials. The report of the MonitoringCommittee shows that on 03.04.2007, 04.04.2007 and 09.04.2007,the police authorities did not cooperate in the matter of sealing ofthe unauthorized premises.

Let the Commissioner of Delhi Police and the concernedarea Police Officers appear in person on 11.04.2007 before thisCourt and file affidavits indicating as to under what circumstancesthe orders of this Court were not carried out and there was noncooperation in the matter of sealing. Similar shall be the positionso far as the Commissioner, M.C.D. is concerned.

The matter shall be listed tomorrow, i.e. 11.04.2007 for thispurpose only.

These cases shall be listed on 07.05.2007. Before that date,learned solicitor General shall indicate the time schedule duringwhich the various infrastructural deficiencies pointed out by leanedAmicus-Curiae are expected to be taken care of. It needs noreiteration that areas which are not covered by the Master Planare not exempted from sealing operations. Only those areas andconstructions which are prima facie covered by the Master Plan,shall be left out of sealing operations.

Report No.34 of the Monitoring Committee shall be kept ina sealed cover.

Copies of the Monitoring Committee’s said Report shall begiven only to the learned counsel for M.C.D., Delhi Police andlearned Solicitor General.

The Charts submitted by Learned A.C. be kept on record.If any person, who has interest in the litigation wants to have asay in the matter, that can only be routed through learned Amicus-Curiae. The necessary information and materials be given tolearned Amicus-Curiae.

The response of the DDA shall also be filed which shallbe taken on record.”

Report No.34 was not regarding premises used purely forresidential purposes.

27. This Court passed an order on 3.1.2012, which is extractedhereunder:

“After hearing Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned amicus on ReportNo.85 and related issues and considering the submissions madeby other learned counsel, we deem it proper to hear the mainmatter involving challenge to the validity of the law enacted byParliament and the notifications issued by the Central Government.

List the case on 13.3.2012. It is expected that on that dayno request will be made for adjournment.

Till the matter is heard by the Court, the MonitoringCommittee shall not order further sealing of the premises whichare under its scrutiny.

We also direct that no construction, temporary orpermanent, shall be made on the premises which have been subjectmatter of scrutiny of the Monitoring Committee and no order shallbe passed by the Government or any authority regularising suchconstruction or sanction the change of user.

The Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi MunicipalCorporation and Municipal Corporation of Delhi are directed toensure that no encroachment is made on any public land, whetherbelonging to the Government or any public authority. They shallalso ensure that no illegal construction is made on any of theproperties which has been subject matter of scrutiny by theMonitoring Committee.

The Monitoring Committee shall be entitled to inspect thepremises in which any illegal construction may have been madeafter this order or any encroachment on public land or regularisationand if necessary, submit report to this Court.

Any person desirous of getting copy of any report of theMonitoring Committee may make an application to the Monitoringcommittee and the required report be furnished to the applicantwithin period of ten days on payment of usual charges.

It is also made clear that any party shall be free to file anappropriate application before the Monitoring Committee for itsconsideration and appropriate order.

IA Nos.2518-2521

Shri M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearingfor the applicants state that in view of the developments whichhave taken place after the last order of the Court, the applicationshave become infructuous and the same may be disposed of assuch.

In view of the statement of learned senior counsel, IANos.2518-2521 are disposed of as infructuous. We hope and trustthat the order passed by the Monitoring Committee will beimplemented at the earliest.”

(emphasis supplied)

It was ordered that the Monitoring Committee shall do no furthersealing of the premises, which are under its scrutiny. No construction,temporary or permanent, shall be raised, which is the subject matter ofthe scrutiny of the Monitoring Committee. No order shall be passed bythe Government or any authority regularizing such construction or sanctionthe user’s change.

28. The order dated 30.04.2013 was passed regarding the misuse/non-conforming use of the residential premises thus:

“3. The judgment in regard to the misuse/non-conforming use ofresidential premises, and power to seal premises, arising in IANo.22, as also, several appeals filed by the Municipal Corporationof Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ’MCD’) which arose out of aFull Bench of the Delhi High Court were decided by judgmentdated 16.2.2006 and is reported as, “M.C. Mehta vs. Union ofIndia, (2006) 3 SCC 399”. It was, inter alia, held that the MCDhad power to seal the premises for non-conforming user in termsof Section 345 of the MCD Act, and various directions wereissued.

4. These cases relate to the matter of non-conforming user ofpremises, and the orders passed thereon, after the judgment of16.2.2006, under the special provisions made by the Parliamentqua Delhi, the various provisions of the Master Plan whichaccording to some of the petitioners were flawed because of thenon-availability of the physical and social infrastructure.”

AFurther, this Court observed with respect to authority or scopeof the Monitoring Committee and the purpose for which the MonitoringCommittee was appointed thus:

“8. (i) We had, as noticed above, by our order dated 24.3.2006,appointed the Monitoring Committee for looking into the aspect-Bof sealing of premises, which were being put to the nonconforminguser.The Monitoring Committee had ordered the sealing of thosepremises. Against which, large number of the applicants haveapproached the Court (by filing writ petitions which wereconverted into IAs, or by filing IAs) praying for desealing. All thesaid IAs are still pending consideration before this Court. WeCpropose to issue appropriate directions in the said IAs as well.

29. On 6.12.2017, this Court reserved its orders on IA Nos.93010and 93007 of 2017, which were decided on 15.12.2017. In the orderdated 6.12.2007, this Court considered the matter with respect toDunauthorized colonies, which came up as per reports dated 12.4.2016and 30.10.2017. It was observed in the order that the power of theMonitoring Committee be restored. While the order was reserved onthe aforesaid date on IA No.93010 and 93007 of 2017, the relevantportion is extracted:

“1. Invaders have pillaged Delhi for hundreds of years, but forthe last couple of decades it is being ravaged by its own citizensand officials governing the capital city – we refer to unauthorizedconstructions and misuse of residential premises for industrial andother commercial purposes. This Court has focussed on theseFillegal activities in several decisions and has issued directions fromtime to time to try and bring some sanity to urban living but to littleor no effect. The applications before us, the chronology of eventsand the historical developments leading up to these applicationshas given cause to reflect and decide on some of these issueskeeping our constitutional obligations in mind.

3. M.C. Mehta, an environmental activist, had already moved thisCourt with an application to find remedy for the air pollution inDelhi in pending writ petition. Although he sought several reliefs,this Court first concentrated on use of residential areas forindustrial purposes and later, the misuse of residential premisesHfor other commercial activities. For the present, we are concerned

with the misuse of residential premises for other commercialactivities.These issues first arose when preliminary orders werepassed by this Court on his application on 30th September, 2002and 19th August, 2003. Thereafter, this Court addressed the issueof residential areas being used for industrial purposes by judgmentand order dated 7th May, 2004 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.[2]

****** ***

10. Having passed orders on 7th May, 2004 relating to unauthorizedindustrial activity in Delhi and being compelled to set up aMonitoring Committee, this Court focused its attention on yetanother problem facing the citizens of Delhi, namely, that of misuseof residential premises for commercial purposes.In the decisiondated 16th February, 2006 in M.C. Mehta, this Court noted inparagraph 53 of the Report that it cannot remain mute spectatorwhen violations of the law affect the environment and the healthyliving of those who abide by the law. It was stated, and the painand anguish of this Court is quite apparent:“Despite its difficulty, this Court cannot remain mute spectatorwhen the violations also affect the environment and healthyliving of law-abiders. The enormity of the problem which, to agreat extent, is the doing of the authorities themselves, doesnot mean that beginning should not be made to set thingsright. If the entire misuser cannot be stopped at one point oftime because of its extensive nature, then it has to be stoppedin phased manner, beginning with major violators. There hasto be will to do it. We have hereinbefore noted in brief theorders made in the last so many years but it seems the samehas had no effect on the authorities. The things cannot bepermitted to go on in this manner forever. On one hand, variouslaws are enacted, master plans are prepared by expert planners,provision is made in the plans also to tackle the problem ofexisting unauthorised constructions and misusers and, on theother hand, such illegal activities go on unabated openly underthe gaze of everyone, without having any respect and regardfor law and other citizens.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

11. This Court observed that if the laws are not enforced andorders of the Courts to implement the laws are ignored, the resultcan only be total lawlessness. In the decision rendered on 16thFebruary, 2006 this Court noted, quite explicitly and not in veiledmanner, that blatant misuse of properties in Delhi for commercial-purposes on such largescale could not take place without theconnivance of the officersand that it was therefore necessary totake action to check corruption, nepotism and total apathy towardsthe rights of citizens – and we may add, chaos and disaster. ThisCourt noted that there must be some accountability not only ofthose violating the law but also of those errant officers who turn ablind eye to the misuse of residential premises for commercialpurposes. It was observed in paragraph 61 of the Report as follows:

“Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of the [Delhi]High Court and this Court, the enforcement of the laws andthe implementations of the orders are utterly lacking. If thelaws are not enforced and the orders of the courts to enforceand implement the laws are ignored, the result can only betotal lawlessness. It is, therefore, necessary to also identifyand take appropriate action against officers responsible forthis state of affairs. Such blatant misuse of properties at large-scale cannot take place without connivance of the officers

concerned. It is also source of corruption. Therefore, actionis also necessary to check corruption, nepotism and total apathytowards the rights of the citizens. Those who own the propertiesthat are misused have also implied responsibility towards thehardship, inconvenience, suffering caused to the residents ofthe locality and injuries to third parties. It is, therefore, not onlythe question of stopping the misuser but also making the ownersat default accountable for the injuries caused to others. Similarwould also be the accountability of errant officers as well since,prima facie, such large-scale misuser, in violation of laws,cannot take place without the active connivance of the officers.It would be for the officers to show what effective steps weretaken to stop the misuser.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

12. In view of the above, this Court directed the Delhi MunicipalCorporation (for short the MCD) to give wide publicity in leadingnewspapers of the requirement that those misusing their residential

premises for commercial purposes should cease the misuse ontheir own. It was also directed that 30 daysafter the issuance ofthe public notices, and if the misuse is not stopped, the process ofsealing the premises would start. The period of 30 days expiredon or about 29[th] March, 2006.

13. Unfortunately, issuance of the public notices had no impacteither on those violating the law or on those expected to implementthe rule of law. Perhaps, as observed by this Court, the reasonwas connivance, corruption, nepotism and total apathy towardsthe rights of the citizens of Delhi - who are today facing the bruntof the decades of illegalities having been committed.

14. Faced with this situation, in its decision of 24th March, 2006in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[3] this Court observed that theMCD had issued appropriate notices but, to oversee theimplementation of the law regarding residential premises used forcommercial (nonindustrial) purposes, it would be appropriate toseal offending premises. Therefore, rather than leave anydiscretion to the officers of the MCD (for obvious reasons) aMonitoring Committee was appointed consisting of Mr. K.J. Rao,Former Advisor to the Election Commissioner, Mr. Bhure Lal,Chairman, EPCA and Major General (Retd.) Som Jhingan. Allnecessary facilities to the members of the Monitoring Committeewere directed to be provided by the MCD including facility oftransport, secretarial services, honorarium etc.

*********

29. On 30th April, 2013 this Court passed significant judgmentand order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.[4] This decision relatedto the challenge to the Act and subsequent legislations extendingthe provisions of the Act. few directions were issued but two ofthem need particular mention: (i) All the writ petitions challengingthe Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 (and subsequentlegislations virtually extending the provisions of the Act) and I.As.connected therewith were transferred to the Delhi High Courtwith request to hear the matters at an early date, preferablywithin one year from the date of receipt of the entire records and

3 W.P.(C) No.4677 of 1985

4 (2013) 16 SCC 336

Apapers. (ii) The order passed by this Court on 3rd January, 2012in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[5] to the following effect wouldcontinue:

“Till the matter is heard by the Court, the Monitoring Committeeshall not order further sealing of the premises which are underBits scrutiny. We also direct that no construction, temporary orpermanent, shall be made on the premises which have been-the subjectmatter of scrutiny of the Monitoring Committeeand no order shall be passed by the Government or any authorityregularising such construction or sanction the change of user.”

C34. It seems to us that the applicants are keen to utilise the premisesin question for residential purposes, as stated in their application.There is no apparent intention to utilise the premises in questionfor commercial purposes or for any purpose not permitted by law.That being the position, it would hardly serve any purpose if theapplicants are required to formally file an appeal before theDAppellate Tribunal which is apparently already dealing with verylarge number of appeals. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of-things to deseal the premises in question for residential purposessubject to certain conditions.

DirectionsE

35. In our opinion, as far as Infinity Knowledge Systems isconcerned the following conditions would meet the ends of justiceand also provide safeguard against possible misuse of residentialpremises for commercial (nonindustrial) purposes:

F(1) The applicants will file an affidavit before the MonitoringCommittee stating that they will use the premises in questiononly for residential purposes and for no other purposewhatsoever. The applicants will identify the persons for whoseresidential use the premises in question are sought to bedesealed. Any change will be notified to the MonitoringGCommittee.

(2) The affidavit filed by the applicants will state the name,address and other particulars of the person who will beresponsible for any misuse of the premises in question, that is,

H5 (2012) 11 SCC 759

for use of the premises in question for any purpose other thanresidential.

(3) The person identified as the person responsible in terms ofcondition No.2 above will also file an affidavit clearly statingtherein that he or she will ensure that the premises in questionare used only for residential purposes and that in the event thepremises in question are used for any purpose other thanresidential, the deponent would be liable for contempt of thisCourt.

(4) The applicants will file with the Monitoring Committee proofof payment of conversion charges to the statutory authority.

(5) The affidavits will be filed before the Monitoring Committeewho may impose such other further conditions as may beappropriate.

36. In the event the Monitoring Committee is satisfied that the-premises in question ought to be desealed, it may require the-concerned statutory authority to deseal the premises in question.If the Monitoring Committee is not satisfied that the premises inquestion ought to be desealed, the applicants will be at liberty toapproach this Court for appropriate orders. We make it clear thatin view of Report No. 46 dated 12[th] November, 2007 this Orderwill not be applicable to all other commercial activities that havebeen sealed in the premises in question.

37. We make it clear that henceforth it will not be necessary forany person whose residential premises have been sealed for misusefor any commercial (other than industrial) purposes at the instanceof the Monitoring Committee to file an appeal before theappropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal. Instead, that person candirectly approach the Monitoring Committee for relief afterdepositing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the MonitoringCommittee which will keep an account of the amounts receivedby it. Any person who has already filed an appeal before theappropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal but would preferapproaching the Monitoring Committee may withdraw the appealand approach the Monitoring Committee for relief on the aboveterms and conditions and on deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- as costs withthe Monitoring Committee, provided that the premises were sealed

at the instance of the Monitoring Committee. Any challenge tothe decision of the Monitoring Committee will lie to this Courtonly. We are constrained and compelled to make this order giventhe history of the case and the more than serious observations ofthis Court of an apparent nexus between some entities and theobservations regarding corruption and nepotism.

38. We make it clear that this order will inure to the benefit ofonly those who are using residential premises for commercial-purposes (nonindustrial) or for any other nonresidential purposeand whose premises were sealed at the instance of the MonitoringCommittee.This order will not at all inure for the benefit of anybodyCusing residential premises for any industrial activity of any sort ornature whatsoever.

39. With regard to the writ petitions that have been transferred tothe Delhi High Court which challenge the Act and subsequentlegislations, we find from perusal of the website of the DelhiDHigh Court that these petitions have not yet been heard, for onereason or another. We do not find any fault with the Delhi HighCourt. The intention of this Court in transferring the writ petitionsto the Delhi High Court was for their expeditious disposalpreferably within one year. Almost four years have gone by inEthis exercise but without any decision. Therefore, given the gravityof the situation as revealed from the Reports of the MonitoringCommittee, we think it appropriate that this Court ought to hearthe writ petitions on an expeditious basis and, accordingly, withdrawthe writ petitions that were transferred to the Delhi High Court tothis Court. The Registry will place these writ petitions on receiptFfrom the Delhi High Court for directions on 12[th] January, 2018.”

The order clarifies that the Monitoring Committee was to lookinto the misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes (non-industrial) or any non-residential purpose.

G30. There is yet another order dated 24.4.2018 passed by thisCourt, thus:

“We have heard learned amicus curiae as well as learnedAdditional Solicitor General (Mr. Nadkarni) appearing for the Unionof India, learned Additional Solicitor General (Mr. Maninder Singh)appearing for the DDA and learned counsel for Government ofHDelhi and other bodies.

Mr. K.C. Naik, Member Secretary and Officiating Chairmanof the Central Ground Water Board is present. He has beenrequested to give us the status of ground water level in 20 pointsin Delhi from the year 2000 onwards every five years includingfor the year 2017/2018 so that we are in position to understandwhether there has been depletion of ground water and in whicharea and to what extent. This may be done in the form of chartas well as in the form of Plan/graph/map.

It has been brought to our notice by learned amicus curiaethat an order was passed by this Court on 27th August, 2007which is quoted in Report No.114 to the effect that construction isbeing carried out in unauthorized colonies. This has been possible-because the building and other byelaws do not apply to theseunauthorized colonies. Consequently, unauthorized colonies areplaced in better position than authorized colonies. It has beenrecorded by this Court in the order dated 27th August, 2007 thatunauthorized colonies cannot be placed in better position thanauthorized colonies.

In view of this situation, we direct that there should not beany further construction in unauthorized colonies including on publicland beyond the existing building and other bye-laws. Consequently,all building and construction activity in the unauthorized coloniesincluding on public land is stopped with immediate effect beyondthe existing building and other bye-laws applicable to authorizedcolonies. The concerned authorities will ensure compliance.

It has been submitted by learned Additional Solicitor General(Mr. Nadkarni) that Task Force is contemplated that will ensurethat the orders of this Court and the applicable bye-laws areimplemented and encroachments, etc. as well as unauthorizedconstructions are removed.

The Task Force as suggested by learned Additional SolicitorGeneral (Mr. Nadkarni) may be constituted with immediate effect.

As first step, the Task Force should removeencroachments on public roads, public streets and pedestrianstreets, as mentioned in the immediate action submitted by Mr.Nadkarni in Revised Note dated 18th April, 2018.The needfulshould be done within period of two weeks from today.

We make it clear that the Monitoring Committee maysuggest to the Task Force the areas where immediate action isrequired to be taken.

It is stated by learned Additional Solicitor General (Mr.Maninder Singh) that about 27.02 acres of public land has beentaken over by the Delhi Development Authority since 1st April,2018. The details of this have not been mentioned. An affidavitshould be filed giving full details of the 27.02 acres of public landthat has been taken over by the Delhi Development Authorityfrom unauthorized encroachments.

List the matter on 15[th] May, 2018.”

(emphasis supplied)

31. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court on24.4.2018 for the constitution of the Special Task Force, an OfficeMemorandum dated 25.4.2018 was issued, which was not with respectDto the conferral of powers on the Monitoring Committee, but of theSpecial Task Force. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“In compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt dated 24.4.2018 given in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Unionof India & Ors. (WP (Civil) 4677/1985), the following ActionEPlan was submitted in the hearing held on 15.5.2018 as intentionand commitment to check all ongoing/ future unauthorizedconstructions, examination of specific complaints of unauthorizedconstructions in the part and to take action thereon and to weedout malpractices and corruption in the functioning of developmentalFand municipal bodies under over the overall supervision andcoordination of the Special Task Force (STF) constituted videOM dated 25-4-2018.

1. Plan of Action to ensure that no further illegalconstruction/ irregularity takes place in future

i) On the basis of territorial jurisdiction of the statutory authorities/local bodies like Delhi Development Authority, New DelhiMunicipal Council, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, North DelhiMunicipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation aGrid of officers has been prepared. This Grid would include thenames, telephone numbers and emails of the concerned Executive

Engineer / Equivalent Officer of respective zones of the variousstatutory authorities/ local bodies, who shall be held accountablefor all future irregular and unauthorized constructions/ violationsof the MPD-2021, the DMC Act, 1957 and the Building Bye-Laws. The List of Officers included in the in the Grid is annexedwhich shall be uploaded on web-site being created separately forinformation of the general public and will be regularly updated bythe concerned statutory authority from time to time, if any onegets transferred or changed.”

32. It is apparent that the Monitoring Committee was authorizedto take care of the unauthorized colonies, and the Special Task Forcewas directed to remove the encroachments from the public roads andpublic streets. This Court considered Report No.114 and thereby hadpassed certain orders. Report No.114 of 2018 is related to unauthorizedconstructions and commercial activities in 1797 unauthorized colonies.Thus, the order of this Court was confined to the unauthorized coloniesand commercial activities mentioned in the report as to encroachmenton the public land.33. The order dated 8.5.2018 is with respect to the groundwaterlevel, not pertaining to the matter in question. The order dated 15.5.2018is with respect to the Central Government to hear and decide theobjections as to Master Plan and the Special Task Force constitutedunder the DDA Act 1957 was ordered to continue with their duties andresponsibilities and action plan submitted by the Attorney General wasto be implemented by the Special Task Force, not by the MonitoringCommittee.

34. In the order dated 24.5.2018, this Court issued the directionsto the statutory authorities to take appropriate action. With respect toillegal and unauthorized structures, no direction was issued to theMonitoring Committee. Following observations were made:

“14. We may mention that it has been recorded that Delhi is beingravaged by unauthorized encroachments and illegal constructionswith impunity and none of the civic authorities including the DelhiDevelopment Authority was sincerely carrying out its statutoryduties. It is painful to require the issuance of directions to statutoryauthorities to carry out their mandatory functions in accordancewith the law enacted by Parliament. Unfortunately, the situation

Ain Delhi warranted such direction due to the apathy of the civicauthorities.”

35. This Court considered Report No.127 on 24.8.2018 related tothe encroachment on the “public land” with respect to the constructionat Burari, Vishwas Nagar (EDMC), Kishangarh, South Zone (SDMC),Bthe encroachment of DDA land at Karkardooma Metro Station (EDMC)and Bhatti Mines area of SDMC.

36. The order dated 7.9.2018 has also been referred to in whichfollowing facts have been noted.:

“2. Functioning of the Monitoring CommitteeC

It is stated that the Monitoring Committee is doing its bestto comply with the orders passed by this Court and to ensure thatthere are no encroachments or unauthorized constructions ormisuse of property in Delhi, but the Monitoring Committee is notgetting adequate support from the executing agencies namelyDMCD, NDMC, DDA, and the Police. Therefore, there are existingconstraints with the result that the Monitoring Committee has notbeen able to fully comply with the orders passed by this Court.

We request the Monitoring Committee to continue with itsonerous task and we expect the statutory bodies (mentionedabove) as well as the Police to render all necessary assistance tothe Monitoring Committee in carrying out its task. If there areany specific complaints, these should be brought to the notice ofthis Court as has been done in the past.

Needless to say that any complaint made by the MonitoringFCommittee brought to the notice of this Court will be taken upwith all due seriousness.”

This Court has specifically noted in the aforesaid paragraph thatthe Monitoring Committee is doing its best to remove the encroachments/unauthorized constructions or misuse of the property, but that is relatedto the encroachments on the public land and unauthorized colonies, andat no point of time this Court has authorized the Monitoring Committeeto take action concerning residential premises which were standing onthe private land and were not being misused. The aforesaid observationsare not with respect to the Committee’s authorization but have to beread in the context of the purpose for which the Monitoring Committee

had been appointed. The power of the Monitoring Committee could notbe said to be widened by the aforesaid observations made in the order.This Court specifically dealt with in several orders the questions relatingto power and the purpose for which the Monitoring Committee had beenappointed.

37. The learned Amicus invited the attention to the order dated12.10.2018, in which this Court simply observed that the MonitoringCommittee should carry out its activities and responsibilities. The orderis quoted hereunder:

“The office report indicates that No Objection Certificatefrom Shri Ajay Kumar Singh has not yet been obtained. The allegedcontemnor should file the No Objection Certificate in the Registry.

The additional affidavit be filed in this regard before thenext date of hearing.

List the matter on 30th October, 2018.

It is made clear that the pendency of these proceedingsshould not deter the Monitoring Committee or any other authorityfrom carrying out its activities and responsibilities.

The alleged contemnor should remain present in Court onthe next date of hearing.”

(emphasis supplied)

38. In the order dated 5.12.2018, the court pointed out with respectto the large number of complaints received by the Special Task Forceand removal of encroachments from the public land, thus:

“1. Mr. Tarun Kapoor, the Vice Chairman of the DDA and theChairman of the Special Task Force (STF) is present in the Courttoday.

The learned ASG, on taking instructions from him, says thatwhile it is correct that regular reports have not been filed in termsof the orders passed by this Court, fortnightly report will henceforthbe filed without fail by the STF.

It is further stated that the STF has received very largenumber of complaints exceeding 7000 and it has become quitedifficult to deal with all these complaints. So far about 3,400complaints have been dealt with.

In view of the large number of complaints, efforts are beingmade to recruit additional staff. It is stated by Mr. Kapoor thatadditional staff will be recruited within 15 days or so or in anycase before 31.12.2018.

We expect the STF to expeditiously deal with all theseBcomplaints and take appropriate action wherever necessary. Thismay be done in time bound manner.

We may note that the fact that the STF has received morethan 7000 complaints indicates the magnitude of the problem ofencroachments and unauthorized construction in Delhi.

2. consolidated report of the actions taken on therecommendations of the Special Task Force has been shown tous today.

On perusal of the report, we find that the total area clearedfrom encroachment by the STF under permanent structures is ashigh as 10,71,838 sq mts. The area under temporary structuresthat has been cleared from encroachment is 16,99,858 sq mts. Inaddition, about 3,202 sq mts of roads / streets / footpaths havebeen cleared on both sides. This confirms the severe problemsbeing faced by Delhi due to unauthorized construction andencroachments and the magnitude of the problem.

3. In view of the huge amount of land that has been retrieved bythe Municipal Corporations under the directions of the STF, it isnecessary to preserve and protect the lands so that there is noencroachment upon it once again.

FSince the Commissioners of the Municipal Corporations arepart of the STF, we would require the STF to look into the matterwith due seriousness and protect and preserve the land that hasbeen taken possession/retrieved from the unauthorizedencroachments. Needless to say, this also includes the roads/streets/footpaths that have been cleared by the STF with theGassistance of the Municipal Corporations.”

39. Learned Amicus relied upon order dated 14.1.2019. Therelevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“….The Monitoring Committee, along with the DeputyCommissioner, Nazafgarh Zone, SDMC, inspected the area behind

Sector 7 Dwarka Sub-city on 30.10.2018 and noticed majorunauthorised constructions in the amalgamated plots wherein hugeshowrooms, restaurants, Gyms etc. were found to be in operation.The Deputy Commissioner, Nazafgarh Zone, SDMC, wereimmediately directed to issue show cause notice to all the violatorsin respect of unauthorised constructions and misuse.

Let the SDMC explain as to why they have not taken anyaction under the provisions of DMC Act for unauthorisedconstructions and as to why the responsibility of taking action hasto be fastened only to Revenue Department, District Magistrateand SDM. The needful be done within three weeks from today.

Let the Revenue Department also explain its stand on theaction taken on the unauthorised constructions pursuant to theobservations made by the Committee and the directions issued inrespect of the plots vested in Sector 7 at Dwarka Sub-city. ….”

It is apparent that in the order dated 14.1.2019, this Court hasnoted that construction of showrooms, restaurants, gyms that was forthe “commercial purpose” and notice was issued in respect of“unauthorized constructions and misuse of the residential area”.

40. Learned Amicus referred to the order dated 31.7.2001 passedin Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 1994. The relevant portion is extractedhereunder:

“52. ….The perusal of the affidavits further shows that the partiesconcerned have not even touched the tip of the iceberg as far asdemolition of unauthorised constructions is concerned. The numberof unauthorised constructions which are said to have beendemolished are small fraction of what is required to be done. Itis quote evident that there is now no fear of the law catching up atleast with those persons who do not believe in adhering to followingthe rules and regulations laid down with respect to construction ofproperty. Unauthorised encroachment and illegal construction evenas per the affidavits are increasing.It is dangerous trend if thepeople do not have either respect for or fear of law primarily dueto non-enforcement of the law. It is something which causes ussome concern and it would be appropriate if serious thought isgiven to this aspect at the higher quarters…….

53. …. On one hand, various laws are enacted, master plans areprepared by expert planners, provision is made in the plans also totackle the problems of existing unauthorised constructions andmisusers and on the other hand, such illegal activities go onunabated openly under the gaze of everyone, without having anyrespect and regard for law and other citizens…..

61. ……Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of theHigh Court and this Court, the enforcement of the laws and theimplementation of the orders are utterly lacking. If the law arenot enforced and the orders of the courts to enforce and implementthe laws are ignored, the result can only be total lawlessness. It is,Ctherefore, necessary to also identify and take appropriate actionagainst officers responsible for this state of affairs. Such blatantmisuse of propertiesat large scale cannot take place withoutconnivance of the concerned officers. It is also source ofcorruption….’’

41. In the order reported in (2004) 6 SCC 588 in this case, thisCourt considered the question of regularization of illegal industrialactivities in the context of violation of Master Plan and industrial activitiesin residential non-conforming areas of Delhi. Requisite directions wereissued for closure or relocation of industrial units non-confirming withEthe ecological balance considering the right of hygienic, clean and safeenvironment. The decision is not relevant with respect to the power andauthority of the Monitoring Committee to act.42. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier this Court in thesame matter passed an order reported in (2013) 16 SCC 336 wherebyFsent all the matters from Supreme Court to the High Court. Since in theHigh Court, the progress was slow, later on, vide order dated 15.12.2017,this Court called all the matters back to this Court.

43. No doubt about it that matter of encroachment is matter ofconcern, but the Monitoring Committee can act within the four cornersGof powers conferred upon it and purpose for which the court appointedthe Monitoring Committee. It cannot exceed its powers and take anyaction beyond its authorization by the court.

44. We have gone through the various reports referred to by thelearned Amicus Curiae and other learned counsel concerning sealing.They reflect the following position:H

REPORT NO.1

45. Report No.1 dated 13.4.2006 submitted by the MonitoringCommittee, is captioned under Para 1, which is extracted hereunder:

“PRELIMINARY REPORT OFTHE MONITORINGCOMMITTEE FOR SEALING OF COMMERCIALESTABLISHMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 24[th]March 2006 had appointed Monitoring Committee comprisingof Sh.K.J. Rao, Former Advisor to Election Commission, Sh. BhureLal, Chairman, E.P.C.A. and Maj. General (Retd.) Som Jhingon,Kirti Chakra, VSM to monitor the sealing of commercialestablishments in residential premises in Delhi. The MunicipalCorporation of Delhi (MCD) had informed the members of theirappointment as Members of the Monitoring Committee on28[th]/30[th] March, 2006. Sh. Bhure Lal & Sh. K.J. Rao took chargeof office on 29[th] March 2006 and had meeting with the officersof the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Senior Advocates ofMCD.”

REPORT NO.2

46. In Report No.2 dated 6.5.2006 submitted by the MonitoringCommittee, is captioned as under:

“REPORT NO.2 OFTHE MONITORING COMMITTEEFOR SEALING OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTSIN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES”

The Report is with respect to the sealing of commercialestablishments in residential premises. Certain suggestions were madewith respect to roads measuring 80 ft. wide and above, mixed land useand payment of conversion charges, zonal plans, parking, vacantcommercial units built by Delhi Development Authority, and Banquethalls. Following is the Executive Summary of the Report:

“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

20. Taking into consideration the above factual position, theMonitoring Committee recommends the Hon’ble Supreme Courtkindly to consider to direct:

Aa. The MCD to recover from the beneficiaries, where mixed landuse has been allowed, the conversion and parking chargestogether with interest thereon from the date of the notificationallowing mixed land use of the premises besides revising theconversion charged fixed by the MCD in 1992.

Bb. The MCD to ensure that Front Setbacks are surrendered bythe beneficiaries of mixed land use streets, as laid down inClause 8(4) of the Master Plan 2001.

c. The MCD to complete the sealing operations in respect ofidentified roads having width of 80 ft & above and to take upCthereafter the sealing operations in respect of roads havingwidth of 60 ft. & above after giving Public Notice, as hasbeen done in the case of roads of 80 ft width and above.

d. The Ministry of Urban Development – Govt. of India to approveand notify the draft Zonal Plans already prepared and pendingDwith the DDA in respect of the remaining nine zones whereinmixed land use roads have already been identified for whichnot more than 15 days time is required. Simultaneously thework regarding the survey and preparation of Draft Zonal Plansin accordance with the Master Plan 221 may continue.

Ee. The Ministry of Urban Development – Govt. of India to modifyits Notification dated 28[th] March 2006 based on the suggestionsgiven by the Committee in paras 17, 18 & 19 above.

f. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and all the local bodies to ensure theimplementation of the parking policy.”

FREPORT NO.3

47. Report No.3 dated 23.5.2006 is again for sealing the“commercial establishments in the residential premises”. It has thereference with respect to the commercial establishments carrying outcommercial activities at their premises. It also has reference to theGDelhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006. Some explanations are alsoin the report concerning the de-sealing of commercial establishments.

REPORT NO.4

48. Report No.4 dated 24.5.2006 is again CAPTION as ReportNo.1. The report is concerning the “commercial establishments” asH

mentioned in Para 2 such as automobile showrooms, Automobileworkshops, Branded showrooms, call centers, coaching institutes, businessoffices, building materials, go-downs, tent houses, guest houses, jewelleryshops, restaurants and iron and steel shops. The report has mention of“small shops”, which deals with private activities in “residential areas”such as Vegetable/ fruits/ flowers, bakery items, kirana, stationery,cybercafé, barber shop, chemist shops, etc. The report further statesabout “prohibited commercial activities in residential areas,” such asbanquet halls, storage, go-downs, junk shops, liquor shops, printing, dyeing,and varnishing, etc.

49. Bistro Village is situated at Hauz Khas. In para 17, it ismentioned that it is an urban village where permitted land use for thearea is residential, and no commercial activity within the village can bepermitted. It was observed that major part of the village is full ofcommercial activities, even though no commercial activity was permittedin Hauz Khaz village, which is residential area. The report also mentionscommercial activities in unauthorized colonies like Madhu Vihar, wherearea earmarked for Community Centre, Health Centre, and othercommunity facilities has encroached. The report was relating to“commercial use in the residential premises”. It was also mentioned thatthere is an encroachment of the monument on public land.

REPORT NO.5

50. Report No.5 dated 20.9.2006 CAPTION as Report No.1,following facts have been mentioned:

“9. Commercial Activity in Unauthorised Colonies onEncroached Public Land – Madhu Vihar:In Its Report No. 4,the Monitoring Committee reported to the Hon’ble Supreme Courtregarding commercial establishments on encroached public landin many unauthorized colonies pending regularization. Examplesof Madhu Vihar and New Ashok Nagar were given in the saidReport. The photographs enclosed as Annexure ‘E’ with the saidReport clearly show the extent of commercial activities on theencroached public land even on the roads of 80’ and above inMadhu Vihar. The Monitoring Committee visited Madhu Vihar on19[th] September 2006 and noticed that in the entire colonycommercial activities have almost been stopped and hectic activitiesgoing on for conversion of those places as residential houses. The

entire commercial area has again been photographed. Thephotographs now taken on 19th September 2006 are enclosed.Development Notification, dated 7[th] September, 2006, theGovernment of NCT of Delhi had notified such streets/stretches(Number not Indicated) by way of Notification No.149, dated15[th] September, 2006. It had further been stated that theGovernment of India and the Government of NCT of Delhi haveenacted the notifications under the powers conferred to themunder the DDA Act and that they are valid and constitutional.The Commissioner MCD concluded that “what amounted to mis-user prior to the above Notifications cannot be termed as mis-user at the present point of time to the extent provided for in theNotifications. The Hon’ble Supreme court of India has directedthe MCD to take sealing action in case of mis-user.Thus, to theextent mis-user continues after the above Notifications, the samewill be sealed as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court”.A copy of the Note of the Commissioner, MCD is enclosed herewith‘’and marked as Annexure C.

6. As the Notification No.149, dated 15[th] September, 2006 referredto in the Note of the Commissioner, MCD had not been receivedby the Monitoring Committee till 11 A.M. on 18[th] September, 2006,a letter was sent to the MCD for copy of the same. TheCommissioner MCD informed the Monitoring Committee to saythat they had received only the first eight pages of the Notificationand that the full text of the Notification would be available only bythe evening of 18[th] September, 2006. copy of the Notification,dated 15[th] September, 2006, has finally been received by theMonitoring Committee at 6 P.M. on 19[th] September, 2006.

7. The Monitoring Committee would submit to the Hon’bleSupreme Court that the rationale and the stand taken by the MCDon sealing operations Vide its Note, dated 16[th] September, 2006 isdifferent from the stand earlier taken by it on the 15[th] September,2006, in the meeting of the Monitoring Committee with theCommissioner and other officers of the MCD, which is somewhatsurprising. The Monitoring Committee further submits that as perthe sealing programmes received from the MCD, the sealingoperations are being done by the MCD as per the stand taken byit in its Note, dated 16[th] September, 2006. Accordingly, sealing

operations are being done in areas/roads which herewith andcollectively marked as Annexure ‘D’. comparison of thesetwo sets of photographs show the extent of change of face of thecommercial area. The Monitoring Committee brings it to the noticeof the Hon’ble Court that any building having commercial activityon any encroachment of ‘public property is not eligible forregularization. Para 1.1 (b) of the Revised Guidelines forregularization of unauthorized colonies as framed by the Govt. ofNCT Delhi provides that colonies /parts of ‘colonies which posehindrances in the provision of infrastructure facilities would notbe considered for regularization. As already mentioned in its ReportNo. 4 the Monitoring Committee had brought to the kind notice ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court that as per the zonal plan entireencroached area is meant for development as Community Center,Medical Center and Public Utility facilities. Further para 1.1(d) ofthe said guidelines provides that no regularization will be done inrespect of the buildings used for commercial purposes except forpetty shops upto 50 sqm. DDA has not taken cognizance of theseviolations on encroached public land. In view of the foregoing, theMonitoring committee reiterates its recommendations to theHon’ble Supreme Court to direct the DDA to take immediateaction, in phased manner, to demolish all such buildings havingcommercial activities on encroached public land in all colonies inDelhi.”

REPORT NO.6

51. In Report No.6 dated 22.9.2006 by the Monitoring Committee,the following facts have been mentioned:

“3. The Monitoring Committee, in addition, would like to bring it tothe kind notice of the Hon’ble Court that despite clear instructionsfrom the Monitoring Committee to carry out the sealings colony-wise instead of road-to-road basis, in respect of prohibited activitiesin residential areas, the MCD had issued contrary orders to theSealing Teams of various zones to carry out the sealings in partsin various colonies in the zone without completing the work in aparticular colony at time. The reasons and the rationale for thischanged action not in consonance with the directions of theMonitoring Committee are not known.”

ABC

AREPORT NO.7

52. In Report No.7 dated 27.9.2006 the CAPTION remains thesame as Report No.1, the following facts have been mentioned:

“1. The Monitoring Committee has, in its Report No.4recommended the perception of small shop, in which 19Bcommercial activities have been mentioned. The MonitoringCommittee has inadvertently omitted the following activities whichmay kindly be considered for inclusion in the said list:-

a. Cable TV/ DTH operations;

Cb. Hosiery/ Readymade Garments/ Cloth Shops;

c. ATM;

1.1 The Monitoring Committee further recommends that theHon’ble Court may kindly consider to fix date before which theowners of the small shops should get themselves registered afterDdepositing the conversion charges and getting the Building Plansrevised.

2. Similarly, the Hon’ble Court may kindly consider to fix datebefore which owners of the shops under mixed land use/commercial use get themselves registered after depositing theEconversion charges and getting the Building Plans revised.”

REPORT NO.8

53. In Report No.8 dated 17.10.2006, the ‘CAPTION’ remainsthe same as Report No.1. The report states meeting with theCommissioner of Police, Delhi, and sealing programme in unauthorizedFcolonies.

REPORT NO.16

54. Report No.16 dated 23.11.2006 is regarding the sealing of“CTC Plaza” at Kilokhri, Ring Road. It is “branded showroom” ofGdiamond jewellery, sarees, costumes, readymade garments, etc. It hasbeen used for commercial activity.

REPORT NO.31

55. In Report No.31 dated 2.3.2007 ‘CAPTION’ is the same asReport No.1, the following facts have been mentioned by the MonitoringHCommittee:

“2. The Monitoring Committee brings it to the kind notice of theHon’ble Supreme Court that following establishments are notcovered by the Master Plan 2021:

(a) Commercial activities on encroached public land;

(b) Commercial activities on floors other than ground floor innotified Mixed Land Use Roads/ Pedestrian Roads;

(c) Prohibited commercial activities in residential and Mixed landuse areasmentioned in para 15.6.2 of Master Plan Delhi-2021;

(d) Commercial activities in basements in residential areas;

(e) Commercial establishments on roads other than the 2183 roadsnotified as Mixed Land Use or Commercial or Pedestrian roadsby Notifications dated 7[th] September and 15[th] September 2006for which no protection is extended (however 90 days time hasbeen provided in the Master Plan-2021 for survey and to notifyadditional roads further to 2183 roads);

(f) Specific Commercial establishments / properties mentioned inthe judgment dated 16[th] February 2006 of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt (While disposing of the Civil Appeals, InterlocutoryApplications (other than IA 22) and Special Leave Petitions in thematter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in its Judgement dated16[th] February, 2006, directed that in case misuser is not stopped inthe premises involved in the Civil Appeals and Special LeavePetitions, subject to what had been stated in the Judgement, theMCD would take immediate steps to seal those premises soonafter expiry of 30 days). The MCD has been requested to furnisha list of such properties which have to be sealed in terms of thisorder). Specific properties mentioned in the Report No.4 dated14[th] September 2006 of the Monitoring Committee (commercialestablishments on encroached public land meant for public utilityservices), as per directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in itsorder dated 29[th] September 2006.”

REPORT NO.34

56. Report No.34 dated 9.4.2017 ‘CAPTION’ is as Report No.1.Non-availability of the police force was required to carry out sealingoperation in the Report.

AREPORT NO.38

57. In Report No.38 dated 21.7.2007, the ‘CAPTION’ is as ReportNo.1. The report is with respect to the “Mixed-Use Regulations” and“Special Area Regulations” as per the MPD-2021. Regulation No.16.2of the MPD-2021 was referred to in the report. It was also pointed outBthat there should be “one shop on one plot in the residential areas”. Thedetail of the registration was given for small shops, professionals,commercial and other activities in the residential areas. Concerningconversion charges for mixed land use, certain suggestions were made.The report also contains the detail of the encroachment made on thepublic land. The report also contains in detail the provisions of the MPD-C2021 and regarding “regularization of unauthorized colonies” on“encroached public land” of “Gram Sabha”, acquired land, “DDA land”,“MCD land”, “Forest land”, etc. It was pointed out that totalencroachments on public land is “26,830 Bigha 17 Biswas”. “Unauthorizedcolonies which have come up on the public land” were havingD“commercial activities” also.

REPORT NO.43

58. Report No.43 dated 5.10.2007 ‘CAPTION’ is the same as inReport No.1. It is apparent from the entire Report No.43 that it wasconcerning payment of conversion charges for small shops, “mixed use”Eand “commercial activities” registered. The report further states regardinggo-downs in rural areas and “encroachment” of Raj Vidya Kender uponthe “public land”.

REPORT NO.46

59. Report No.46 dated 12.11.2007 was filed concerning IAsregarding sealing of premises of the ICICI ‘Bank’ Limited at NewFriends Colony, various “business schools and institutions, physiotherapyand wellness centers/hotels at the Kailash Colony” area where“residential premises have been used for the commercial activities”.

REPORT NO.47

60. Report No.47 dated 5.12.2007 was submitted concerningvarious IAs filed in this Court with respect to sealed premises of SmallShops Traders Welfare Association. The Monitoring Committee observedconcerning Vidhata Estates Private Limited that it was running“commercial activities in building.” The Monitoring Committee observedHas under:

“In view of the foregoing, the Monitoring Committee submits thatthe applicant, who is running commercial activities in buildingona part of the plot abutting non-notified road, with unauthorizedconstructions and having no legal access to the notified road, isnot entitled to any relief in the matter.”

(emphasis supplied)

61. Some hotels, guest houses, other commercial premises, businessschools, etc. were also mentioned. “None of the items” is for “purelyresidential premises”. The Monitoring Committee further observed:

“The MCD has already been informed by the MonitoringCommittee that industrial units in residential areas do not fall underits purview and the same may be sealed or de-sealed as per thedirections of the Monitoring Committee constituted by the Hon’bleSupreme Court for the purpose.”

REPORT NO.75

62. Report No.75 dated 1.1.2020 is concerning the “commercialactivities” and unauthorized construction by “Reebok Showroom”,“Hotel” West End Inn, Central Plaza, NH 8, and “Rangapuri” Extension.

63. Concerning ensuring the implementation of the Master Planof Delhi, 2021 (MPD-2021), in its true spirit, all “commercial activities inresidential premises” are identified and removed. Following facets havebeen mentioned by the Monitoring Committee in its Report:

“2. SPECIAL SUBMISSION OF THE MONITORINGCOMMITTEE

The Monitoring Committee submits that the Committee hasbeen appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to ensureimplementation of its orders in the matter after taking intoconsideration large scale commercialization of residential premises.By various orders, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down theguidelines and also ensured that the Government brought out theMaster Plan of Delhi, 2021. The Monitoring Committee has triedto ensure the implementation of MPD-2021 in its true spirit byensuring that all commercial activities in residential premises areidentified and removed. Some important facets are:

A1. Admissibility of only one small shop on plot in residentialpremises

2. Re-survey of classified roads. Many roads which do not qualifyto be notified either as MLU/ Commercial Road even as perthe MCD survey, have not been de-notified despite theBassurance given by the MCED to the Hon’ble Supreme Courtand several reminders by the Monitoring Committee. In onecase single property in & Colony (A-4 SarvodayaEnclave) has been clubbed with E&F Colony and notified ascommercial road in blatant violation of the MPD-2021, by anamendment to the Notification dated 15[th] Sept 2006).C

3. Commercialization in Rural & Urban Villages.

4. Encroachment of public land by the traders.

5. Non sealing of commercial activities in non-permissible premiseslike D-1, D-1A & D-18, Green Park Min Market, Jahaz MahalD(Mehrauli) Shiva Market in DDA Pak in Rohini Zone etc.

6. Parking & free circulation on commercial roads.

7. Breaking of seals in more than 70 reported cases in just twoZones of MCD, in which action has not been initiated forcontempt of court proceedings.”E

REPORT NO.85

64. In Report No.85 dated 4.4.2011, ‘CAPTION’ is the same asin Report No.1. complaint was made by the Monitoring Committee asto the order of the Lt. Governor of Delhi for “de-sealing” some of theFestablishments under “commercial/ mixed land use” in violation of ordersof this Court. The details of “construction on public land” by Dr. LalPath Labs, 54, Hanuman Road, and encroachment on public land,unauthorized construction, and misuse of “shops/flats in Khan Market”area was concerned.

GREPORT NO.103

65. In Report No.103 dated 12.4.2016, it was pointed out thatpursuant to remitting the cases by this Court to the Delhi High Court,various difficulties in the implementation of the order were pointed out.The details were given with respect to the hearing of the cases by theHDelhi High Court and progress on disposal of appeals before the Tribunals.

The details of de-sealing of properties in the unauthorized colony, village& abadi area (including urban villages constructed on public land) weregiven. The details were given about the refusal of the Standing Committeeof the erstwhile MCD to de-notify 140 Roads in Shahdara North, Rohini,Central, South, and West Zones resurveyed. Violations of the ordersdated 3.1.2012 and 30.4.2013 by various commercial establishments werepointed out and other facts regarding interference of Lt. Governor ofDelhi in the sealing matter of Dr. Lal Path Labs Pvt. Ltd. etc. andunauthorized construction on Government and public land were giventhus:

“The Monitoring Committee would submit to the Hon’ble Courtthat the Municipal Authorities, NDMC and DDA are lax in theperformance of their duty with respect to unauthorised constructionand encroachment on public/ govt. land. The public at large isviolating the laid down orders i.e. Building Bye Laws and MasterPlan etc. The fear factor with respect to the punitive action bythe Authorities is totally missing from the public mind therebycreating chaotic situation on the ground in whole of Delhi. Theofficers concerned are not performing there assigned duties. TheDDA has not been able to safe guard/ protect its land and there isrampant encroachment. The DDA must as policy make aboundary wall to protect the land from any type of encroachmentand also carry out regular inspection of their land holdings.”

REPORT NO.104

66. Report No.104 dated 30.10.2017 deals with the “conversioncharges” regarding “mixed use land”, de-notification of 140 roads,“unauthorized construction” on “public and Government land” and“unauthorized colonies were being constructed by way of encroachmentsin the Government land”. The Report further states regarding violationsby commercial establishments like Delhi Cloth Mills and other institutionswhere “commercial shops” were built and regarding Ambassador “Hotel”etc.

REPORT NO.106

67. In Report No.106 dated 10.1.2018 submitted by the MonitoringCommittee, public land use was acquired where unauthorized structureswere raised. The Monitoring Committee has mentioned the followingfacts:

A“The Monitoring Committee has finalized its plan to carry out theassigned task of sealing the unauthorized structures, eradicatemisuse and remove encroachment on DDA/ Government landand making the public aware of the seriousness of their crime forany illegal act in this process. Retrieval of DDA land and Forestland is the priority task set by the Monitoring Committee.”

REPORT NO.111

68. In Report No.111 dated 7.2.2018 concerning E-5A, Hauz KhazMarket, New Delhi, it was submitted that the same falls under Shops-cum-Residential use, not as Local Shopping Centre. The Report wasCregarding “use of basement for professional activities in residentialpremises”. It further dealt with the “encroachments on the public land”and submits that the “commercial activities are not permitted in theconverted shops cum residence”.

REPORT NO.112

69. Report No.112 dated 9.2.2018 of the Monitoring Committeeis concerning large scale “commercial activities in the residentialpremises” at Shahdara, South Zone.

REPORT NO.114

70. Report No.114 dated 3.4.2018 is concerning the constructionEof unauthorized colonies on Gram Sabha land, acquired land, DDA land,and MCD land. It was submitted that no regularization could be done inrespect of residential premises used for non-residential purposes.

REPORT NO.118

71. Report No.118 dated 7.5.2018 concerns the “Khan Market”where “verandahs were encroached and amalgamated in the shops”causing hardship to the visitors in the market. The report further statesregarding encroachment of DDA land at Sanjay Market, MangolpurKalan in Rohini Zone and misuse of premises for commercial activities

GREPORT NO.119

72. Report No.119 dated 24.5.2018 is regarding the slow progressof the “sealing operations” in Lajpat Nagar-IV and Amar Colony-Refugee Colony, where large scale “encroachments” were made byowners/ occupants on the “Government land”.

REPORT NO.120

73. Report No.120 dated 11.6.2018, again referred to this Court’sorder dated 29.9.2006 regarding “conversion of residential user intocommercial” user except with the leave of this Court.

It was observed that the Government’s obligation was to ensurecompliance of the order of this Court, and the Special Task Force andthe Monitoring Committee were directed to continue with its duties andresponsibilities.

REPORT NO.121

74. Report No.121 dated 13.6.2018 was concerning “non-cooperation” of the local bodies with the Sealing Officer, where afterinspection, it was found that certain “rooftops” were being used as “pubs”and “dance floors” after clubbing the plots illegally.

REPORT NO.124

75. In Report No.124 dated 4.7.2018 again, complaint was maderelating to “non-cooperation” of authorities in the sealing process as theMaster Plan (MPD-2021) was under consideration.

REPORT NO.125

76. Report No.125 dated 31.7.2018 is concerning the constitutionof the Special Task Force. It was pointed out that there was “non-cooperation” by the “Special Task Force”. Details were mentioned aboutsealing action at Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, where the “tenements”built by the Government for residential purposes only were allotted torefugees in various colonies in Delhi on lease basis. Most of themwere used for “commercial activities by raising unauthorized construction”on the Government and common land. Details about the roads were alsogiven.

REPORT NO.127

77. Report No.127 dated 20.8.2018 was again concerning illegal/unauthorized construction. With respect to “Burari Area” (North MCD)the report was submitted that the area was vandalized and hugeunauthorized construction has come up. Concerning “Vishwas Nagar”(EDMC), report was relating to “residential premises being used as Go-downs” and storing places for “prohibited industries,”. In Kishangarharea at South Zone, large scale unauthorized construction was reported

Aon DDA land by way of encroachment. Similarly, the encroachment onDDA land at Karkardooma Metro Station was pointed out. At BhattiMines area of SDMC, “encroachment of Revenue/Forest land” waspointed out.

REPORT NO.128

78. In Report No.128 dated 5.9.2018 suggestions were maderegarding permanent de-sealing norms. Dubious deviations regardingmisuse of unauthorized constructions were pointed out. “Unauthorizedconstructions” were being raised in unauthorized colonies on the “publicland”. Details were given about “encroachment on the DDA land”.

CREPORT NO.129

79. In Report No.129 dated 18.9.2018 report was furnishedregarding illegal dairy running at Gokulpur, which was sealed but theseal was tampered.

REPORT NO.131D

80. Report No.131 dated 8.10.2018 is related to the “contemptnotice” issued by this Court to one of the Members of Parliament.

REPORT NO.134

81. Report No.134 was submitted concerning the “Motels/ FarmEHouses” who have constructed “pandals, shamianas, sheds,” etc. in theirplots. Order dated 12.10.2018 of this Court was also stated which isextracted hereunder:

“…….As an interim measure, we direct that the basement of thepremises in question shall remain sealed until further orders.FMr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf ofthe applicant says that no pandal will be constructed on the premisesin question. In view of this undertaking, the seal on the premisesmay be opened. The Monitoring Committee as well as the SouthDelhi Municipal Corporation should give their report within tenGdays.The applicant may respond to these reports within four daysthereafter.”

82. Certain violations of MPD-2021 were also pointed out to becomplied with by the concerned authorities.H

REPORT NO.144

83. Report No.144 dated 11.12.2018 is in respect of the “casespending” before the “High Court of Delhi” regarding property situatedat 22A, Janpath. The report was submitted regarding “change of theland” used for “residential purposes as commercial” and the residentialpremises were used to run chemist shop. Similarly, other cases werealso pointed out. Regarding the 20 Point Programme (TPP) certain“allotments” of plots were made for the “residential purpose” but theywere being used for the “commercial activities”. Showrooms, Restaurants,Gyms, etc. were reported to be in operation on those plots. The reportfurther states with respect to Singla Sweets (commercial) at MadhuVihar and Vanasthali Public School, which were constructed on publicand acquired land.

84. The order dated 7.5.2019 was pointed out time and again bythe learned counsel for the parties. On 7.5.219 this Court directed theMonitoring Committee as under:

“Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel andAmicus Curiae, and the learned senior counsel appearing on boththe sides.

I.A.No. 61593/2019 and 61594/2019

question has been raised whether the Committee has thejurisdiction to decide about the premises which have been erectedfor residential purposes only and are not being used for commercialpurposes and the buildings have not been erected and used forindustrial purposes. Question is also raised whether the Committeehas been empowered to take care of unauthorised construction,when they are purely for residential purpose.

We request the Committee to send its opinion whether inthe past, it has exercised its power and jurisdiction where thepremises are only constructed and are used as residential one andthere is an allegation of raising unauthorised construction or somedeviation has been made in the existing structure. We request theCommittee to furnish its considered opinion in this regard beforethis Court.

****** ***

It was also submitted that as per the provisions containedin Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Delhi DevelopmentAct, 1957, notification was issued by the DDA on 22.03.2016.Chapter 1 contains the provision of regularisation. Paragraph 2.27is extracted hereunder :-

“2.27 Any building or part thereof constructedunauthorisedly with or without obtaining the Sanction/Completion Certificate communicated thereof by writtenintimation/undertaking can be regularised, if the same iswithin the ambit of BBL and MPD provisions by payingrequisite fees and charges as per Annexure IV.”

It was also submitted that the construction is in accordancewith the Master Plan and is in low density residential area. Whetherit is case of deviation or wholly unauthorised construction inview of the report of measurement, may also be gone into by theCommittee and thereafter, the matter may be decided in anobjective manner, whether it can be compounded or not inaccordance with the aforesaid provisions. Let the Committeedecide the matter afresh within 15 days of the receipt of the reportafter hearing the concerned parties. Factual position from SDMmay also be ascertained as he has written letter dated 03.04.2019.

As prayed for by Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned counsel,it is open to the applicants to maintain the horticulture and wateringof the plants etc.

For taking out the essential items etc., it is open to theapplicant to apply to the Committee.”

This Court directed the Monitoring Committee to give itsconsidered opinion specifically as to whether at any point in time in thepast, it sealed any residential premises, which were not misused forcommercial purposes. The Monitoring Committee kept silent on thisaspect and did not cite even single such instance. Four orders referredto by the Monitoring Committee neither deal with the question of thepower of the Monitoring Committee, nor they are relevant to the point inquestion.

85. It is apparent from the various orders passed by this Courtfrom time to time and from the various reports of the Monitoring

Committee that it was never authorized by this Court to take actionagainst the residential premises that were not being used for commercialpurposes. It was appointed only to check the misuser of the residentialproperties for commercial purposes. After that, this Court directed thatthe Monitoring Committee should also look into the matter of“encroachment on the public land” and “unauthorized colonies” that havecome up on the public land and were wholly unauthorized withoutsanction. At no point in time, this Court had empowered the MonitoringCommittee to act vis-à-vis to the purely residential premises.

86. The power of sealing of property carries civil consequences.A person can be deprived of the property by following procedure inaccordance with law. The Monitoring Committee is not authorized totake action concerning the residential premises situated on the privateland. If there is unauthorized construction or in case of deviation, therequisite provisions are under the DMC Act, such as sections 343, 345,347(A), 347(B). The mode of action and adjudication under the Act isprovided including appellate provisions and that of the Tribunal. It wouldnot be appropriate to the Monitoring Committee to usurp statutory powersand act beyond authority conferred upon it by the Court. The MonitoringCommittee could not have sealed the residential premises, which werenot misused for the commercial purpose as done vide Report No.149,nor it could have directed the demolition of those residential properties.

87. Article 300A of the Constitution provides that nobody can bedeprived of the property and right of residence otherwise in the mannerprescribed by law. When the statute prescribes mode, the property’sdeprivation cannot be done in other modes since this Court did notauthorize the Committee to take action in the matter. An action couldhave been taken in no other manner except in accordance with theprocedure prescribed by law as laid down in the decisions referred to atthe Bar thus:

(a) State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77,wherein this Court observed:

“59. ….In absence of any substantive provisions containedin parliamentary or legislative act, he cannot be refrained fromdealing with his property in any manner he likes. Such statutoryinterdict would be opposed to one’s right of property as envisagedunder Article 300-A of the Constitution.”

A(b) K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9

SCC 1 in which it was opined:

“168. Article 300-A proclaims that no person can bedeprived of his property save by authority of law, meaning therebythat person cannot be deprived of his property merely by anBexecutive fiat, without any specific legal authority or without thesupport of law made by competent legislature.The expression“property” in Article 300-A confined not to land alone, it includesintangibles like copyrights and other intellectual property andembraces every possible interest recognised by law.

C169. This Court in State of W.B. v. Vishnunarayan andAssociates (P) Ltd.[6], while examining the provisions of the WestBengal Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act,1980, held in the context of Article 300-A that the State orexecutive officers cannot interfere with the right of others unlessthey can point out the specific provisions of law which authorisesD”their rights.

(emphasis supplied)

(c) In T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member, (2006) 8SCC 502, the Court observed:

E“13. Town Planning legislations are regulatory in nature. The rightto property of person would include right to construct building.Such right, however, can be restricted by reason of legislation.In terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and CountryPlanning Act, comprehensive development plan was prepared.FIt indisputably is still in force. Whether the amendments to thesaid comprehensive development plan as proposed by the Authoritywould ultimately be accepted by the State or not is uncertain. It isyet to apply its mind. Amendments to development plan mustconform to the provisions of the Act. As noticed hereinbefore, theState has called for objection from the citizens. Ecological balanceGno doubt is required to be maintained and the courts whileinterpreting statute should bestow serious consideration in thisbehalf, but ecological aspects, it is trite, are ordinarily part of thetown planning legislation. If in the legislation itself or in the statutegoverning the field, ecological aspects have not been taken into

consideration keeping in view the future need, the State and theAuthority must take the blame therefor. We must assume thatthese aspects of the matter were taken into consideration by theAuthority and the State. But the rights of the parties cannot beintermeddled with so long as an appropriate amendment in thelegislation is not brought into force.

15. The law in this behalf is explicit. Right of person to constructresidential houses in the residential area is valuable right. Thesaid right can only be regulated in terms of regulatory statutebut unless there exists clear provision the same cannot be takenaway. ….”

(emphasis supplied)

(d) In the matter of State of U.P. v. Manohar (2005) 2 SCC 126,this Court observed:

“7. Ours is constitutional democracy and the rights availableto the citizens are declared by the Constitution. Although Article19(1)(f) was deleted by the Forty-fourth Amendment to theConstitution, Article 300-A has been placed in the Constitution,which reads as follows:

“300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save byauthority of law.—No person shall be deprived of his propertysave by authority of law.”

8. This is case where we find utter lack of legal authority fordeprivation of the respondent’s property by the appellants whoare State authorities. …”

(e) In Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. &Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 354, this Court held:

“83. The expression “law” which figures both in Article 21 andArticle 300-A must be given the same meaning. In both the casesthe law would mean validly enacted law. In order to be validlaw it must be just, fair and reasonable having regard to therequirement of Articles 14 and 21 as explained in Maneka Gandhi.This is especially so, as “law” in both the Articles 21 and 300-A is

Ameant to prevent deprivation of rights. Insofar as Article 21 isconcerned, it is fundamental right whereas in Article 300-A it isa constitutional right which has been given status of basichuman right.”

(f) It was further argued that planning laws are expropriatory andBshould be strictly construed, and any ambiguity is to be construed infavour of the property owner as laid down in Delhi Airtech Services

(P) Ltd.v. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra) thus:

“129. Statutes which encroach upon rights, whether as regardsperson or property, are subject to strict construction in the sameCway as penal Acts. It is recognised rule that they should beinterpreted, if possible, so as to respect such rights and if there isany ambiguity, the construction which is in favour of the freedomof the individual should be adopted. (See Maxwell on TheInterpretation of Statutes, 12th Edn. by P. St. J. Langan.)

D130. This Court in Devinder Singh[7] held that the Land AcquisitionAct is an expropriatory legislation and followed the case ofHindustan Petroleum Corpn. v. Darius Shapur Chenai[8]. Therefore,it should be construed strictly.The Court has also taken the viewthat even in cases of directory requirements, substantial compliancewith such provision would be necessary.”E

(emphasis supplied)

(g) In Ramchandra Ravindra Waghmare v. Indore MunicipalCorporation, (2017) 1 SCC 667, it was opined:

“67. It was also submitted that town planning and municipalFinstitutes are regulating and restricting the use of private propertyunder the aforesaid Acts. They are “expropriatory legislation”.Thus they are liable to be construed strictly as laid down in IndoreVikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd.[9]"

(h) In Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure IndustrialGCoke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 705, it was held:

7 (2008) 1 SCC 728

8 (2005) 7 SCC 627

9 Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors.(2007) 8SCC 705.H

“57. The Act being regulatory in nature as by reason thereof theright of an owner of property to use and develop stands restricted,requires strict construction.An owner of land ordinarily would beentitled to use or develop the same for any purpose unless thereexists certain regulation in statute or statutory rules. Regulationscontained in such statute must be interpreted in such manner soas to least interfere with the right to property of the owner ofsuch land. Restrictions are made in larger public interest. Suchrestrictions, indisputably must be reasonable ones. (See BalramKumawat v. Union of India[10]; Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samitiv. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd.[11] and Union of India v. WestCoast Paper Mills Ltd.[12]) The statutory scheme contemplatesthat person and owner of land should not ordinarily be deprivedfrom the user thereof by way of reservation or designation.

58. Expropriatory legislation, as is well-known, must be given astrict construction.”

(i) In State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas & Ors., (1969)1 SCC 509, it was held:

“55. …… Once the draft town-planning scheme is sanctioned,the land becomes subject to the provisions of the Town PlanningAct, and on the final town-planning scheme being sanctioned, bystatutory operation the title of the various owners is readjustedand the lands needed for public purpose vest in the local authority.Land required for any of the purposes of town planning schemecannot be acquired otherwise than under the Act, for it is settledrule of interpretation of statutes that when power is given under astatute to do certain thing in certain way the thing must bedone in that way or not at all:”

(emphasis supplied)

(j) In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.,(2003) 2 SCC 111, it was opined:

“40. The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the propertymust be strictly construed. It is well settled that when statutoryauthority is required to do thing in particular manner, the same

10 (2003) 7 SCC 628

11 (2004) 1 SCC 391

12 (2004) 2 SCC 747

DEF

788SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Amust be done in that manner or not at all. The State and otherauthorities while acting under the said Act are only creature ofstatute. They must act within the four corners thereof.”

(emphasis supplied)

(k) In Shrirampur Municipal Council v. SatyabhamabaiBBhimaji Dawkher (2013) 5 SCC 627 it was held:

“43. …… This is the reason why time-limit of ten years has beenprescribed in Section 31(5) and also under Sections 126 and 127of the 1966 Act for the acquisition of land, with stipulation that ifthe land is not acquired within six months of the service of noticeCunder Section 127 or steps are not commenced for acquisition,reservation of the land will be deemed to have lapsed. ShriNaphade’s interpretation of the scheme of Sections 126 and 127,if accepted, will lead to absurd results and the landowners will bedeprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite periodDwithout being paid compensation. That would tantamount todepriving the citizens of their property without the sanction of lawand would result in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution.”

(emphasis supplied)

88. It is quite apparent that particularly when the MonitoringECommittee is not empowered to take action, the incumbents could nothave been deprived of the due process of protection in accordance withlaw. As against the action of the Monitoring Committee, no appeal lieselsewhere. Even High Court is not authorized to entertain any matterand scrutinize its action, such is the drastic step taken by this Court byFway of an exceptional measure in public interest, and it is confined to themisuse of residential property for commercial purpose and encroachmentsand unauthorized construction on the public land, roads.

89. After going through the report of the Monitoring Committeeand other reports which have been relied upon by the Amicus Curiae,there is no scintilla of doubt that the Monitoring Committee in the past atGany point of time did not seal any residential premises being used forresidential purposes, situated on the private land nor it could have ordereddemolition. The ‘caption’ of the various reports of Monitoring Committeei.e. “PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE MONITORINGCOMMITTEE FOR SEALING OF COMMERCIALH

ESTABLISHMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES” makes itabsolutely clear that Monitoring Committee did not entertain any doubtabout the purpose for which it was constituted. Apart from that, it wasauthorized by subsequent orders to act with respect to unauthorizedconstruction on the public land and roads that too, which violated theMPD-2021.

90. Learned Amicus Curiae raised the alternative submission thatthe Monitoring Committee acted bonafidely at the instance of the letterwritten by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. We are of the opinion that theMonitoring Committee could not have acted based on any such letter. Itwas not permissible for the Monitoring Committee to act in the matter.May be that it acted under some confusion created by the letter. Be thatas it may. We do not want to go further into the matter of bona fide.However, it is apparent that its action was beyond the purpose for whichit had been appointed.

91. We are not going into the merits of the other submissions,whether the premises are authorized or unauthorized, can be regularizedor not, compounding can be done, or whether there is any deviationmade. The report of the Monitoring Committee and findings recordedby it are of no use as it had no such authority to go into the variousquestions. This Court did not appoint the Monitoring Committeeconcerning each and every residential building on private land not misusedfor commercial purposes and to deal with the same. In the present matter,this Court itself is monitoring the matter for limited public purpose. Ithas not taken away the powers of statutory authorities under the Actconcerning other matters except specified in the order.

92. Since we have considered only the ambit of powers of theMonitoring Committee, we have not touched with the submissions whichwere not relevant to decide, as raised by Mr. Govardhan.

93. We quash Report No.149 and other reports submittedsubsequently in connection with Report No.149 and entire action of sealingpursuant thereto. We also quash notices issued directing demolition wherethe matter was being heard by this Court and the Monitoring Committeehad no power to look into the matter and to take any action. Let theproperty sealed as per Report No.149 be de-sealed, and possession berestored to the owners forthwith. Let this order be complied with withinthree days. However, we clarify that this order does not at all mean to

Abelittle the yeomen service done by the Monitoring Committee forprotection of Delhi. We also place on record our deep appreciation forthe selfless service done by Shri Ranjit Kumar, Amicus Curiae, for thelast 24 years, with unflinching hard work and dedication along with histeam of other Amicus in the matter.

BIssue notice in IA No.64993 of 2020.

Divya Pandey

Directions issued.