VIKRAM VAISH FAMILY TRUST Vs. M.C.D.
LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-327
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 21,2007

Vikram Vaish Family Trust Appellant
VERSUS
M.C.D. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.MURALIDHAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') to regularise the construction made by the petitioner on its property at G -1, Pushpanjali Farms, Village Bijwasan, New Delhi. The petitioner trust purchased the property in question on 16.5.1980 and constructed a dwelling unit after getting the building plans approved by the MCD on 27.9.1999.
(2.) BY notification dated 23.7.1998 of the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Department of Urban Development, Government of India, issued a notification in terms of Section 11A(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 ('Act') making modifications to the Master Plan for Delhi, MPD -2001 which inter alias prescribed revised norms for 'farm houses'. The changes brought out were as under: Farm Houses (135) 4. On page 164 (RHS) of the Gazette of India dated 1.8.1990, the table will be replaced by the following: (i) Minimum size of the farm house 0.8 ha. (ii) Maximum ground coverage 5% (iii) Maximum FAR 5 (subject to maximum of 500 sq. mtr. irrespective of the size of the farm) (iv) Number of storeys two (v) Maximum height 8 mtrs. All constructions including basement, if any, will be counted towards FAR."
(3.) FOLLOWING this, the MCD brought out a public notice inviting applications for regularisation of unauthorised constructions and specified the charges that had to be paid for that purpose. The charges for the additional FAR were Rs. 450/ - per sq.m., apart from compounding fee etc. In terms of this announcement, the petitioner submitted its building plans on 26.3.1999 with the fee of Rs 1,49,350/ - on the basis that it was entitled to 5000 sq.ft. covered area. According to the petitioner, the Executive Engineer (Building) Nazafgarh Zone called upon the petitioner on 11.1.2000 asking it to get the construction made on the property regularised by depositing the compounding fee. By its letter dated 20.1.2000 petitioner informed the MCD that it had already deposited the requisite compounding fee on 26.3.1999. It was pointed out in that letter that three copies of the building plans had already been submitted to the MCD and it was expecting the plans to be sent back after approval. The MCD was requested to inspect the premises and approve the building plans. The copy of the receipt of the payment made was also enclosed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.