MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus KISHAN DAS & ANOTHER

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 166 · Decided: 19-09-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

166 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
v. 
KISHAN DAS & ANOTHER 
September 19, 1968. 
[J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JI.) 
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (66 of 1957), ss. 336 and 380-
Sanction of building plans-Powers of refusal-De/hi Development Act 
(61 
of 1951), s. 
14-Master Plan prepared but no Zonal Plan pre-
pared-Violation of Master Plan-Whether use of land prohibited. 
The Commissioner of the appellant (Municipal Corporation of Deihl) 
issued notice to the respondents stating that the building owned by them 
posed a danger to the residents of the area and that necessary repairs may 
be carried out immediately after obtaining sanction. The respondents 
thereupon submitted plans to the Corporation but the Commissioner of the 
Corporation refused the sanction on the ground that the land belonging 
to the respondents would be covered by a road proposed in the Master 
Plan prepared by the Delhi Development Authority. The respondents 
filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for a direction to the 
Corporation to accord the sanction. 
The High Court allowed the peti-
tion, holding that the Commissioner could decline the sanction only if 
there was a contravention of s. 336(2) or s. 340 of Delhi Municipal 
Corporation Act, 1957 and that in this case there was no such contra-
vention. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the Com-
missioner was, under s. 336(2) (a), entitled to refuse sanction of a 
building or work if the building or work or use of the site for building 
· or work contravened 'any other law', that the Master Plan prepared had 
come into effect under the Development Act and that as the proposed 
construction would not be in conformity with the Master Plan it would 
contravene s. 14 of the Development Act. 
HELD : The appeal must fail. 
The provisions of s. 7 of the Development Act indicate that the 
Master Plan will only give a very broad outline of the Development 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Act that the moment a Master Plan has come into operation and if it 
F 
contains a proposal regarding the width that a road should have, all use 
of land adjoining that road is prohibited for an indefinite period. Under 
s. 14, if any particular and definite use of land is indicated in a Master 
Plan, different use of that land cannot be permitted. Similarly, if a 
Zonal Development Plan, the preparation of which is mandatory under 
s. 8, provides for a particular use of any land or any building in !bat 
Zone, it cannot be put to a different use; if neither of the plans provide 
for the particular use of any land or building in the area or 
Zone, 
G 
s. 14 will have no apl'lication whatsoever. 
The respondents' lands were not in any manner indicated as being 
taken up by any part of the proposed road mentioned in the Master 
Plan, nor was a Zonal Development Plan prepared, in the present case. 
Therefore, there was no violation of s. 14 of the Development Act and 
hence there was no violation of 'any other law' under s. 336(2) (a) of 
the Corporation Act. [175 F-176 G) 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1049 of 
1968. 
-. 
 ' 
' 
MUNIC. CORP. v. KISHAN (Vaidialingam, J.) 
167 
A 
Appeal by special leave from the order, dated August 11, 1967 
of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 85 of 1967. 
Niren De, Solicitor-General, B. P. Maheshwari 
and R. K. 
Maheshwari, for the appellant. 
M. C. Chagla and Urmila Kapoor, for the respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J. 
This appeal, by the Municipal Corpo-
ration of Delhi, by special leave, is directed against the judgment 
and order, dated August 11, 1967 passed by the High Court of 
Delhi High Court, dated May 10, 1967 whereby a writ of manda-
Patent Bench had confirmed an order of the learned Chief Justice, 
C 
Delhi High Court, dated May 10, 1967 whereby a writ of Manda-
mus had been issued to the appellant to approve the plans sub-
mitted by the respondents and grant the sanction asked for. 
D 
E 
The circumstances leading up to the issue of the writ of 
mandamus against the appellant may be briefly adverted to. The 
respondents are the owners and are in possession of the building 
bearing municipal door Nos. 3766 to 3776, situated in the main 
Chawri Bazar, Delhi. As the building was an old construction and 
required urgent and extensive repairs, on October 16, 1965 the 
respondents submitted to the appellant plans for its sanction for 
execution of work consisting of rejlairs, add
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.