LexPOONAM versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~'
POON AM
A
v.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.
JULY 27, 2000
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.)
B
Municipalities:
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957-Section 337-layout plan c
sanctioned by Corporation for 98 plots but stated 108 plots by mistake-
Plot [E-25) ceased to exist after exchange with neighbour plot-holder for
straightening out irregular boundaries-Revised layout plan sanctioned but
stated the plot as existing by mistake-Additional plots carved out by
Society-Conditional allotment of Plot {E-25 (new)] made to appellant's
mother subject to sanction of revised layout plan for additional plots- D
Revised layout plan rejected-Appellant's mother insiste on regular allotment
by Society of the said plot-mother died-Application/or building permission
on the said plot filed with Corporation by appellant-Permission rejected
as the said plot is not part of sanctioned-layout plan-Appellant's
contention that the said plot is in place of old plot [E-25) which was part
of sanctioned layout plan-Deemed sanction of building plan-Claim of-
E
Held, there cannot be deemed sanction as the plot itself is non-existent in
J
sanctioned layout plan.
Respondent-Society applied to Respondent-Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (MCD) for sanction of layout plan of 98 plots. MCD, by a Resolution F
dated 1-5-1958, sanctioned the layout plan. By mistake, the Resolution
mentioned 108 plots. The sanctioned lay-out plan had irregular boundaries
as a result of which there was no proper approach road to certain plots which
included plot No. E-25, the plot in dispute. Therefore MCD prohibited building
activities in those plots. The Society, with the permission of MCD, negotiated
with neighbour plot-holder for exchange of certain plots to straighten out G
the boundaries of the Society. As a result, two plots (C-23 and E-25( were
exchanged with the neighbour plot-holder. The Society submitted a revised
layout plan to the MCD for approvaL MCD, by Resolution dated 18.5.1964
permitted exchange of land and sanctioned the revised layout plan. Plot No.
E-25 was mentioned in the Resolution as existing by mistake, which has H
.).
709
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A already ceased to exist the Society after exchange. The Society constructed
~ ,_
roads and applied for building permission on all the plots. MCD, by a
Resolution dated 25-8-1965, permitted the building activities in 98 plots. The
layout plan accompanying the resolution is missing from the records of MCD.
The Society carved out 11 additional plots taking advantage of the mistake
B
made in Resolution dated 1-5-1958 by MCD which indicated 108 plots instead
of 98 plots and applied for sanctioning of the revised layout plan. Meanwhile,
the Society issued a circular to the effect that conditional allotment is made
to allottees of additional plots pending sanction of the revised layout plan by
MCD. The Circular also made it clear that if MCD rejected the revised layout
plan, the allottees would get back the money after deduction of expenses.
c
Appellant's mother was given a conditional allotment of one of the
additional plots (Plot No. E-25 (new)( under the Circular of the Society. MCD.
by a Resolution dated 14-11-1968, rejected the revised layout plan which
included the additional plots. The Society informed the appellant's mother
about the rejection of the revised layout plan by MCD and to take back the
D deposit amount. The appellant's mother insisted on allotment of the Plot No.
E-25 (new) and refused to take back the money. Later, the Society applied to
· MCD for permission to carve out two new plots (C-35 and C-36( instead of old
plots (C-23 and E-25( which had ceased to exist as a result of exchange with
the neighbour plot-holder. MCD, by resolution dated 29-1-1976, allowed
E
permission to carve out the new plots. The appellant's mother died in 1977.
In 1991, the appellant submitted a building plan for approval. MCD rejected
the building plan on the ground that Plot No. E-25 (new) was not a part of
sanctioned layout. The appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal
which was rejected. The Lt. Governor allowed the appeal. MCD filed a Writ
Petition before High Court which was allowed.
F
In appeal, the appellant contended that the Resolution dated 25-8-1965
permitted building activity on plot No. E-25; that the layout plan annexed to
the Resolution indicates that the plot existed on that Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.