LexSOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER versus BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN (DEAD) THR. LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 248 : 2025 INSC 1324 South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner v. Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs. (Civil Appeal No. 6077 of 2018) 06 November 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-South Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, thereby affirming the order passed by the District Judge granting deemed sanction to the plans put forward by the respondents for construction of a residential house. Headnotes† Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Deemed sanction of plan for construction of a residential house – Grant of – Respondent decided to dismantle 85 years old house which was in a dilapidated condition and put up a new construction to be utilised for their residence – Submission of plans before the Municipal Corporation, however, no decision taken – Application filed before the tribunal, and deemed sanction of the plans granted – Thereafter, concurrent findings by the courts below – Interference: Held: No good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment by the High Court – Single Judge very correctly held that the owners cannot be compelled to convert the ground floor of their residential accommodation to a commercial unit, rather, he may choose to do so – Appellant cannot expect the respondents to put up construction in a manner by which the ground portion would be for commercial use, and the upper floor would be for residential purpose, and more particularly, when he has a vested crystalised legal right to use it for residential purpose for all times to come – Submission on behalf of the appellant defies logic that the respondents may continue * Author [2025] 12 S.C.R. 249 South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner v. Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs. to reside in the dilapidated house, but if they want to put up new construction, then it has to be commercial on the ground floor and upper floor as residence – Even the notification, does not support the case put forward by the appellant in any manner – With 15 years having passed by, they will have to incur huge expenditure for putting up new construction – Photographs of the subject house of the respondents show that it is in a dilapidated condition and any time may collapse – In fact, the appellant should have expressed concern about the safety and lives of the occupants of this house, rather than objecting to sanctioning of their plans – This is nothing short of harassment – Respondents to put forward fresh plans for approval for construction of a house – Considering the arbitrary and high-handed manner in which the appellant harassed the respondents, cost of Rupees ten lakh to be paid to the respondents by the appellant. [Paras 11, 13-20] Case Law Cited M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. in I.A. No(s). 203615 & 218080 of 2024 and I.A. No. 210981 of 2025 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985 – referred to. List of Acts Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. List of Keywords South Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner; Deemed sanction of plan; Construction of residential house; Dismantle 85 years old house; Dilapidated condition; Convert ground floor of the residential accommodation to a commercial unit; Harassment; Cost of Rupees ten lakh. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6077 of 2018 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP No. 1497 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No. 6078 of 2018 250 [2025] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Mohit Yadav, Arun Pratap Sngh Rajawat, Ms. Vandana Sehgal. Advs. for the Respondents: Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv., Abhay Kumar, Abhay Jain, Shagun Ruhil, Karan Chopra, Abhay Kumar. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. 1. These appeals arise from the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 11.05.2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1497 of 2012 and 01.06.2017 in Review Petition No. 217/2017 in W.P.(C) No. 1497/2012 respectively by which the appeal filed by the appellant herein, namely, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the order passed by the learned District Judge granting deemed sanction to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.