South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner vs Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

2025 INSC 1324 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6077 OF 2018

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(S) THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER

VERSUS

BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN (DEAD) THR. LRS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6078 OF 2018

O R D E R

J.B.PARDIWALA & 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Municipal Date: 2025.11.17 16:29:26 IST Reason:

Corporation through its Commissioner came to be

dismissed, thereby affirming the order passed by the learned

District Judge granting deemed sanction to the plans which were

1 put forward by the respondents herein before the Corporation

for construction of a residential house.

2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated

thus:-

(I) The respondents herein before us have a

residential house of their ownership bearing No.

4752 and 4758 respectively situated at 23, Ansari

Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. This house is almost

85 years old and is in a dilapidated condition.

In such circumstances, the respondents decided to

dismantle it and put up new construction to be

utilised for their residence. The plans were

accordingly prepared and put forward before the

appellant in the year 2010.

(II) It appears that no decision was taken by the

authority concerned on the sanctioning of the

plans put forward by the respondents. In such

circumstances, the respondents went before the

Appellate Authority–MCD, which is a Tribunal

constituted under the provisions of Section 347A

of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for

short “the Act”). The Tribunal allowed the

application and granted deemed sanction of the

plans.

2 (III) Being dissatisfied with the order passed by

the Tribunal–MCD, the appellant went in appeal

before the Additional District Judge, by way of

Appeal No. 1/2011. The appeal filed by the

appellant herein came to be dismissed by the Court

of the Additional District Judge vide order dated

13.02.2012, thereby affirming the order passed by

the Tribunal.

(IV) Being dissatisfied with the order passed by

the Court of the Additional District Judge, the

appellant went before the High Court by way of a

writ petition. The writ petition also came to be

dismissed.

(V) We are informed that against the judgment

and order passed by the learned Single Judge of

the High Court, a Letters Patent Appeal was also

filed, however, the same came to be dismissed on

the ground of being not maintainable.

(VI) The Special Leave Petition preferred against

the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal was

dismissed as withdrawn on 23.12.2016.

Thereafter, the appellant preferred another

Special Leave Petition against the order of the

Learned Single Judge and obtained liberty to seek

3 review of the order passed in Writ Petition (C)

No. 1497 of 2012. The said Review Petition came

to be dismissed on 01.06.2017.

3. In such circumstances, referred to above, appellant is

here before us with the present appeal.

4. Ms. Vandana Sehgal, the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, vehemently submitted that the High Court committed

an egregious error in passing the impugned judgment and order.

According to her, it is not permissible for the respondents to

put up new construction in the form of a new house. Although

the present residential house may be in a dilapidated

condition, and it may be permissible for the respondents to

continue to reside in such a dilapidated house, yet the law

does not permit the respondents to dismantle the present

structure and put up a new house. According to her, the new

bylaws do not permit the respondents to dismantle the house and

put up a new structure. In other words, according to the learned

counsel, the construction has to be strictly in accordance with

the Master Plan and sub-Zonal Plan respectively meant for the

Ansari Road, Darya Ganj. According to the learned counsel, even

if the respondents want to construct a new house, they are

obliged in law to put up a shop on the ground floor which should

be commercial in nature and thereafter, on the first floor or

the second floor, they may make their residence.

4

5. On the other hand, Mr. Paul, the learned Senior counsel

appearing for the respondents, while vehemently opposing this

appeal, would submit that no error, not to speak of any error

of law, could be said to have been committed by the High Court

in passing the impugned judgment and order. According to him,

there are concurrent findings of three authorities. To start

with the Tribunal, the Court of the Additional District Judge

and thereafter the High Court in his favour. He would submit

that the ancestors of his client started residing in this house

sometime in 1940. He submitted that his clients are not in a

sound monetary condition to shift to any other place in Delhi.

The only option available with the respondents is to dismantle

the present house and put up a new RCC construction and use it

exclusively for residential purpose.

6. The learned senior counsel took us through the notification

dated 15.09.2006 issued by the Urban Development Department,

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. He invited

our attention to clause 15.1 and clause 15.2 respectively.

According to him, this notification permits the occupant of a

property situated in the area in question to use it for mixed

facility, in residential areas. He would submit that his client

does not intend to use the new premises which he would like to

construct for mixed use and he wants to use it only for

residential purpose.

5

7. The principal argument canvassed by the learned senior

counsel is that how can the appellant compel a person to make

use of his property for mixed purposes, i.e., commercial-cum-

residential, and more particularly, when the person wants to

use it only for residential purpose. According to him, the new

provision in the notification is an enabling provision, which

permits the owner of the property, and more particularly, those

who want to use it for mixed purpose.

8. In such circumstances, referred to above, he would submit

that there being no merit in this appeal, the same may be

dismissed.

9. While dismissing the review petition, the Learned Single

Judge of the High Court noted, inter alia, that it was for the

first time the SDMC canvassed an argument in a review petition

that the ground floor would necessarily have to be used for

commercial purpose. The SDMC had earlier set up the case that

the building plans submitted by the respondent were deficient

because the plans had failed to provide for stilt parking on

the ground floor, thus the insistence on the use of the ground

floor as a shopping outlet militates against the case set up

by the SDMC in the writ petition.

10. The learned Single Judge went on to observe:

“Secondly, the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 makes it amply clear that the areas notified for mixed

6 land use are to· be used for commercial purposes to a limited extent. Shops are permitted on plots abutting notified streets albeit only on the ground floor and upto the maximum permissible ground floor coverage. This does not imply that the owners of residential property on notified streets are compelled to develop the property in that manner and apply for change of user. It is also relevant to mention that the change of user for developing the properties for partly commercial use on notified streets is permissible on payment of the conversion charges.” (Emphasis supplied)

11. A bare perusal of the relevant circular dated 27.05.2009

makes it clear that the learned 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. The circular reads thus:

“Circular

The following guidelines in consultation with the Technical Committee of DDA and the Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are issued to all concerned for processing applications/ cases for approval of Building Plans on notified streets under mixed-use regulations:

1. The Building Plans on notified commercial streets/roads can be sanctioned for commercial use/partly commercial/partly/residential/fully residential as per the choice of the applicant.

xxx xxx xxx

4. Activities permitted on mixed use streets under mixed use regulations in MPD-2021 / its amendments shall be allowed in the case of plots abutting in mixed use streets on -ground floor only and upper floors shall be for the residential use.

7 5. One time conversion charges as per notification dated 22.06.2007 and as amended from time to time shall be charged for the area being sanctioned for commercial use on notified commercial streets.”

12. The same understanding may be gained from the observations

made in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and ors in

I.A. Nos. 203615 & 218080 of 2024 and I.A. No. 210981 of 2025

in Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985 respectively by Justice

B.R. Gavai, CJI, which are as follows:

“20. The learned Senior Counsel for the MCD further enlightened us on the different categories of markets across Delhi with reference to the Master Plans notified for Delhi. The first Master Plan for Delhi was MPD-1962, replaced by the 2nd Master Plan, MPD-2001 published on 01.08.1990 and then the 3rd Master Plan, MPD-2021 which came into effect on 07.02.2007. We have from the documents produced by the applicant himself, found that the applicant has obtained a sanctioned plan for construction only in the year 2005. The Master Plan for 2021 conceived the Community Centres (CC) as shopping and business centres while the Local Shopping Centre (LSC) and the Convenience Shopping Centre (CSC) would cater to the day-to-day needs of the local population.

Certain areas developed prior to 1962 like Lajpat Nagar, Rajouri Garden, Tilak Nagar, Kamla Nagar and others which existed prior to MPD-1962 had consolidation of commercial activities.

21. The LSCs were categorised into two categories, one meant exclusively for commercial use and the other for mixed use where commercial activity was allowed to be carried out on the ground floor and residential activity permitted on the upper floors. MPD-2021 designated some of the shop-cum- residential complexes which were earlier termed as ‘shop-cum-residence’ plots/shops as Local Shopping Centres and permitted commercial use of floors above the ground floor, subject to payment of conversion charges. The former category of LSCs

8 wherein exclusively commercial activities were carried out, were thus called planned LSCs while those in which conversion of the ‘residential’ to ‘commercial’ was permitted were called designated LSCs. New Rajinder Nagar in which the applicant's plot is situated has been notified as a pre-1962 built up residential and rehabilitation colony. The understanding of the applicant was also not otherwise since the sanctioned plan produced along with the IA, as applied for the applicant, clearly indicates the sanction of residential areas on the upper floors.” (Emphasis supplied)

13. We also thought fit to put few questions to Mr. Rahul

Verma, serving as an Assistant Engineer with the appellant. The

officer present before us is attached with the Building

Headquarters Department. We enquired with the officer, what is

the idea in imposing such a restriction. According to him,

since the entire Ansari Road, Dariya Ganj, Delhi is now full

of local shopping centres, each and every residential house

should be a shopping complex, if ultimately new construction

is to be put up. We were taken aback when we came to know

that the residential house of the respondents which is in a

very dilapidated condition is on a 300 square yard plot. This

residential house as noted above was constructed sometime in

1940. The land is said to have been purchased sometime in 1935

and construction of the house was completed sometime in 1940.

We are at our wits' end to understand how does the appellant

expect the respondents to put up construction in a manner by

9 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.

14. The argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant defies

logic that the respondents may continue 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, which we have

referred to above, does not support the case put forward by the

appellant in any manner.

15. We are at pains to note that this litigation is now almost

15 years old. Had the permission being granted 15 years back,

the respondents would have been able to complete the

construction within a particular budget. With 15 years having

passed by, they will have to incur huge expenditure for putting

up new construction.

16. We also looked into the photographs of the subject house

of the respondents. 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.

17. In such circumstances, referred to above, we see no good

10 ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed

by the High Court.

18. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

19. We permit the respondents to put forward fresh plans for

approval. The plans shall be for construction of a house. Once

the plans are submitted, the authority concerned shall sanction

the same within a period of four weeks from the date of

presentation and grant necessary permission to put up

construction meant for residential purpose.

20. In the gross facts and circumstances of this case, and

considering the arbitrary and high-handed manner in which the

appellant harassed the respondents, we impose costs of

Rs.10,00,000(Rupees ten lakh only) to be paid to the

respondents on or before 17.12.2025 without fail. The payment

towards costs shall be reported to us. It shall be open for the

respondents to put forward the very same plans which were

earlier approved by the High Court.

21. With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of.

22. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6078 OF 2018

In view of the Order passed by us in Civil Appeal No. 6077

of 2018, nothing remains in the connected appeal and the same

11 is also disposed of.

...................J. [J.B.PARDIWALA]

...................J. [K.V. VISWANATHAN]

New Delhi 6th November, 2025.

12