“PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR SEALING OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES”

When this Court did not appoint the Monitoring Committee concerning each and every residential building on private land not misused for commercial purposes and to deal with the same, the merits of the other submissions, whether the premises   are   authorized   or   unauthorized,   can   be   regularized   or   not, compounding can be done, or whether there is any deviation made.   The report of the Monitoring Committee and findings recorded by it are of no use as it had no such authority to go into the various questions.We quash Report No.149 and other reports submitted subsequently in connection with Report No.149 and entire action of sealing pursuant thereto. We also quash notices issued directing demolition where the matter was being heard by this Court and the Monitoring Committee had no power to look into the matter and to take any action.  Let the property sealed as per 70 Report   No.149   be   de­sealed,   and   possession   be   restored   to   the   owners forthwith.  Let this order be complied with within three days. 

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL/ APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.4677 OF 1985

M.C. MEHTA ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)

WITH 

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.266 OF 2006 

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.263 OF 2006 

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.264 OF 2006 

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.450 OF 2006 

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.464 OF 2006 

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.470 OF 2006 

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.569 OF 2006

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.563 OF 2006 

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.610 OF 2006

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.212 OF 2008

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.229 OF 2008

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.144 OF 2009

AND

2

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.33454 OF 2018 

J U D G M E N T

ARUN MISHRA, J.

IN   RE:   ISSUE   RELATING   TO   JURISDICTION   OF   THE   MONITORING

COMMITTEE

1. We are dealing with the authority of the “Monitoring Committee to seal

the residential premises on the private land” particularly when they are not

being used for the “commercial purpose”. Whether the Monitoring Committee

could have sealed these residential premises is the only question which we

are examining in this order.

2. Report No.149 dated 2.4.2019 submitted by the Monitoring Committee

concerning specific unauthorized constructions allegedly carried out in the

Vasant Kunj and Rajokari area.   These constructions were not on public

land.   The   respective   persons   owned   the   land,   and   the   Committee   had

submitted that a letter was received from the SDM, Mehrauli on 22.2.2019

regarding unauthorized construction in Vasant Kunj, Delhi.  

3. A reply was filed on behalf of the residents that various residential

premises were sealed where constructions were made long back.  There was

no   authority   with   the   Monitoring   Committee   to   seal   purely   residential

premises.  It was pointed out that their structure was in consonance with

3

the Master Plan (MPD­2021) within Low Density Residential Area (LDRA)

modified vide Notification No.S.O.1199 (E) dated 10.5.2013 and Notification

No.S.O.1744   (E)   dated   18.6.2013.     Reliance   was   placed   on   the   various

bylaws/statutory   provisions.   It   was   submitted   that   the   Monitoring

Committee was not authorized to take action, and the residential premises

should be de­sealed.   It was also pointed out that compounding has been

made in some cases.   The structure should not be demolished, given the

provisions of the applicable acts, by­laws, and policy. It has to be regularized

for which prayer was pending before concerned authorities.  

4. It was further contended that it is a residential area, farmhouses were

notified as Low­Density Residential Areas, and the premises were used as

residential premises.  They are in accord with MPD­2021. “Mehrauli” is an

urbanized village.  The Monitoring Committee was not empowered to seal the

premises used for residential purposes.   It was permissible to raise the

construction for the use of a residence as provided under Clause 4.4.3 G of

MPD­2021.  Reliance has also been placed on NDRA Policy.

5. We have heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy and Shri A.D.N.

Rao, learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Rakesh Khanna, Shri Siddharth Luthra,

Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri R.C. Mishra, Shri Nalin Kohli, Shri Wasim A.

Qadri, Shri Sanjiv Sen, learned senior counsel, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned

Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Addl. Solicitor General, Shri

D.N. Goburdhan, Shri Naveen Kumar, Ms. Karuna Nundy, learned counsel

and other learned counsel appearing for the parties. 

4

6. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae with his usual vigour

urged that Writ Petition (C) No.4677 of 1985 was filed in this Court regarding

environment   in   Delhi,   shifting   of   heavy   industries,   noxious   industries,

stopping   of   all   mining   in   Aravali   hills   in   and   around   Delhi   including

demolition   of   colonies   built   on   forest   land,   misuse   of   premises   (misuse

includes   unauthorized   construction),  i.e.,   construction   without   sanction,

lack of civic amenities and the need for their upgradation, etc.  This Court

appointed the Monitoring Committee in the year 2006.  Various orders have

been referred to submit that the Monitoring Committee is entitled to inspect

premises   in   which   any   illegal   construction   has   been   made.   This   Court

restored its power on 6.12.2017.  A Special Task Force was set up to ensure

that the order of the court and applicable bylaws were implemented. LDRA

Policy in derogation of the MPD­2021 is notified on 7.2.2007.

7. Learned Amicus attracted the attention of this Court to orders dated

24.4.2018, 8.5.2018, 15.5.2018, 18.5.2018, 24.5.2018, and various other

orders and certain reports, which we will refer later.  He has pointed out that

the   Special   Task   Force   was   constituted   on   25.4.2018.     The   Monitoring

Committee   has   the   power   to   seal   unauthorized   construction,   and

regularization thereof cannot be allowed.  He has attracted the attention of

this Court to the O.M. dated 23.5.2018 issued by the Government of India

containing an action plan for monitoring of all construction activities in

Delhi   and   fixing   responsibility   in   case   of   violations   of   MPD­2021   for

unauthorized encroachments and other illegal construction activities.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae also argued that the Monitoring Committee is

5

authorized to see construction with sanction plan or construction contrary to

sanction plan.  Alternatively, it was submitted by the learned Amicus that in

case this Court comes to the conclusion that the Monitoring Committee was

not entrusted with the power concerning residential premises when they

were not being used for “commercial purpose” as the power of sealing was

exercised (as per Report No.149) bonafidely on the request made by the SDM

and any  order,  which may be passed  and  ordered to  be  prospective in

operation.

9. Ms. Ashwariya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing

on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Environment submitted that the

Monitoring   Committee   is   entitled   to   inspect   the   premises   where

encroachments are there on public land.  Attention has been invited to this

Court’s order dated 3.1.2012, which was recalled vide judgment and order

dated   15.12.2017.     This   Court   on   15.12.2017   ordered   the   Monitoring

Committee to continue to work as it was doing before 3.1.2012.  This Court

constituted the Monitoring Committee on 23.4.2006 for the limited purpose

of   addressing   the   use   of   “residential   premises   for   commercial   purpose”.

Despite the limited mandate to the Monitoring Committee, it illegally sealed

other premises. A Special Task Force has been constituted as per order

dated   24.4.2018   to   remove   the   encroachments   on   public   roads,   public

streets, and pedestrian street, and it was for the Monitoring Committee to

suggest to the Special Task Force the areas where immediate action was

required to be taken concerning aforesaid aspect. The Special Task Force

was constituted under section 5(3) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

6

Thus,   it   is   a   statutory   body.     It   has   the   task   of   overseeing   the

implementation   of   the   applicable   laws   regarding   illegal   constructions,

encroachment   on   public   land,   public   parks,   parking   places,   roads,

pavements, etc.  Special Task Force is taking adequate action as and when a

violation is reported.

10. Shri D.N. Goburdhan,  learned counsel appearing  on  behalf  of the

Government of NCT of Delhi, has raised the following arguments:

a. That the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short, “the DMC

Act”) is a complete code by itself. The Delhi Municipal Corporation is a

statutory body which cannot be deprived of its functions.   He has also

attracted the attention of this Court to the Building Regulations and to

sections   334   and   335   of   the   DMC   Act   relating   to   sanctions,   additions,

alterations, and its power to take action in appropriate cases. He submitted

that the DMC Act is a complete code by itself as it provides how the sealing

is to be done, when it is to be enforced, and in case of its failure, the remedy

is provided under section 490.   Statutory appeals are provided under the

DMC Act  to  the  Appellate Tribunal and the Administrator.   A  complete

regulatory mechanism is provided for the sealing operation of properties.

Thus,   it   cannot   be   deprived   to   exercise   its   powers   conferred   by   the

Monitoring Committee under the DMC Act. 

b. This Court appointed the Monitoring Committee on 16.2.2006 only to

prevent misuse of residential premises for commercial use and not with

respect to residential premises used for residential purposes.   Once the

Monitoring Committee does the sealing, no statutory appeal lies before the

7

Appellate Tribunal constituted under section 347(A) and 347(B) of the Act.

The Statutory Appeals were transferred to the Monitoring Committee, which

ordered the sealing of the premises. The principle of natural justice was thus

thrown to winds.  The order appointing the Monitoring Committee was for

limited purpose and power was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The order too deserves to be recalled in view of the decisions of this Court in

A.R Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr.  (1988) 2 SCC 602, Bonkya vs. State of

Maharashtra (1995) 6 SCC 447, Prem Chand Garg v. Executing Commissioner

U.P., AIR 1963 SC 996 and SCBA vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409.

c.  That the executive, legislative and judicial functions of the statutory

bodies   are   demarcated   under   the   Constitution,   and   statutory  provisions

cannot be taken away by the Monitoring Committee.  Reliance is placed on

Arif Hameed v. State of J & K, (1989) Supp. [2] SCC 364.

d. The legislature has conferred statutory power to seal or demolish on

the Municipal Corporation, and Monitoring Committee cannot exercise its

power in total abrogation to the powers of the statutory bodies. 

11. Shri Rakesh Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the LAC’s Federation of Delhi, submitted that this Court on 15.12.2017

passed   judgment   and   order   with   respect   to   sealing   of   the   residential

premises used for commercial purposes in Delhi.  The Monitoring Committee

has exercised power unauthorizedly.   The orders were passed in order to

stop the unauthorized commercial use of the land earmarked for residential

purposes, as provided in the Zonal Plan.  The Monitoring Committee without

8

power   sealed   the   premises,   which   were   in   the   commercial   area   for

commercial use.  He has attracted our attention to certain provisions of the

Master Plan.  Concerning the aforesaid aspects, we do not propose to deal

with it in the instant order.   We propose to deal only with the limited

question whether the Monitoring Committee is empowered by this Court to

seal the residential premises.   We leave the question of commercial plots

raised by Shri Khanna to be dealt with separately. 

12. Shri Khanna further argued that the Monitoring Committee had no

power to seal purely residential premises.  He has attracted our attention to

this Court’s order by which it was constituted, and various other judgments

and   orders   passed   in   this   regard.     He   has   argued   that   the   Monitoring

Committee   kept   quiet,   pursuant   to   the   query   made   by   this   Court   on

7.5.2019 as to whether in past, before Report No.149 was submitted, the

Monitoring Committee sealed the residential premises which were not being

used   for   commercial   purposes.     No   past   instance   was   given   by   the

Monitoring  Committee regarding sealing of  residential  premises used for

residential purposes, particularly when it was not made on public land.  He

has   also   argued   with   respect   to   LDRA   Policy   and   as   to   permissible

regularization. 

13. Shri Nalin Kohli, learned senior counsel has taken this Court through

various   orders   passed   by   this   Court   and   the   Report   of   the   Monitoring

Committee to submit that this Court appointed the Monitoring Committee

for the limited purpose of checking commercial misuse of the residential

properties.     At   no   point   in   time,   this   Court   authorized   the   Monitoring

9

Committee to seal the residential premises used for the residential purposes

that too situated on private land.  Thus, the action of sealing such houses is

unwarranted and illegal. 

14. Shri Naveen Kumar, learned counsel, has invited our attention to the

order   dated   7.5.2019.   This   Court   sought   the   Monitoring   Committee   to

specify with respect to its power conferred by the court and secondly, any

prior example where the Monitoring Committee sealed such premises. The

Monitoring Committee referred to the orders dated 23.11.2006, 12.2.2007,

9.3.2007, and 10.4.2007 to justify its action.  It was argued that the orders

relied upon by the Committee are not at all relevant for sealing of such

premises.     The   Monitoring   Committee   was   appointed   only   to   prevent

commercial   misuse   of   the   residential   properties.   The   subsequent   orders

indicate   that   it   was   authorized   to   deal   with   the   encroachment   and

unauthorized colonies on public land. 

15. On behalf of the incumbents whose property has been sealed as per

the report No.149, similar submissions have been raised.   The Monitoring

Committee was given limited powers, which was divested on 30.4.2012.

Later vide order dated 6.12.2017, the Monitoring Committee was restored

with   the   power   it   exercised   earlier.   A   Special   Task   Force   had   been

constituted on 25.4.2018 pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

16. Ms. Karuna Nundy, learned counsel, argued that under Article 300­A

of the Constitution, a person cannot be deprived of its property otherwise

than the due procedure of law, is supported by series of judgments of this

10

Court.  When the Monitoring Committee is not empowered to deal with such

residential  premises,  it  could  not  have acted.  The  detailed  procedure  is

provided   under   the   DMC   Act   along   with   the   Appellate   Tribunal   under

sections 347A and 347B of the DMC Act.  The Monitoring Committee, unless

specifically authorized by this Court, could not violate the procedure under

the DMC  Act. Reliance  has  been placed by  the  learned counsel on  the

various decisions to be referred to later.

(i) Particularly when the Monitoring Committee is not empowered to take

any   such   action,   no   appeal   lies   against   the   action   of   the   Monitoring

Committee.  Only it hears a representation.  Not even the High Court can

interfere in the functioning of the Monitoring Committee.

(ii) Even with respect to the encroachment on public roads, public streets,

and pedestrian streets, the Special Task Force is authorized to take action.

Thus, the Monitoring Committee's power after the constitution of Special

Task Force is further restricted, and it is for the Monitoring Committee to

suggest to the Special Task Force with respect to the encroachment on the

public land, roads, and public places.

(iii) The range of remedies available to the owner of the property in the

residential premises' occupation cannot be deprived of by the Monitoring

Committee. The provisions regarding demolition and stoppage of buildings

and works in certain cases are contained in section 343 of the DMC Act,

section 345 deals with power of the Commissioner to require alteration of the

work; section 347A provides for an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal,

section 347B deals with appeals against certain orders and notices issued

11

under the Act and section 347E deals with the bar of jurisdiction of courts.

Once   the   statutory   right   is   conferred,   it   cannot   be   dealt   with   by   the

Monitoring Committee until and unless it is authorized.

    DISCUSSION:

17. The   Monitoring   Committee   was   appointed   and   empowered   by   this

Court to take action within the powers conferred.   In the teeth of various

statutes, it would act strictly within the four corners of the powers conferred

on it by this Court.

18. When we consider the various orders passed by this Court from time

to time, before the constitution of the Monitoring Committee, we find that

this Court at no point in time has empowered the Monitoring Committee to

take action with respect to residential premises not used for commercial

purpose.  This Court initially passed an order on 7.5.2004 and constituted

the Monitoring  Committee comprising of  (i)  Chief Secretary of  Delhi,  (ii)

Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (iii) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of

Delhi and (iv) Vice­Chairman of Delhi Development Authority.  It was ordered

that Monitoring Committee would be responsible for the stoppage of illegal

industrial activities. The order dated 7.5.2004 is extracted hereunder:

“Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal pronounced the

judgment of the Court issuing directions in terms of the signed

judgment.

A Monitoring Committee comprising (i) Chief Secretary

of Delhi (ii) Commissioner of Police, Delhi (iii) Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi and, (iv) Vice-Chairman of

Delhi Development Authority has been appointed. This

Committee would be responsible for stoppage of illegal

industrial activity. It would, however, be open to the aforesaid

members of the Monitoring Committee to appoint responsible

officers subordinate to them to oversee and ensure compliance of

12

the directions contained in the judgment.

The first Progress Report by the Committee shall be filed

by 31st August, 2004 and thereafter it shall be filed at least once

in a period of every two months.”

19. (i)   The   Monitoring   Committee   was   constituted   by   this   Court   vide

judgment and order dated 16.2.2006 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors,

(2006) 3 SCC 399.  Following is the relevant portion:

“1. In respect of large number of immovable properties

throughout Delhi, flagrant violations of various laws including

municipal laws, master plan and other plans besides

environmental laws have been engaging the attention of this

Court for number of years. With a view to secure the

implementation of laws and protect fundamental rights of the

citizens, various orders were passed from time to time.

2. This Court has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental

rights of Indian citizens. What happens when violators and/or

abettors of the violations are those, who have been entrusted by

law with a duty to protect these rights? The task becomes

difficult and also requires urgent intervention by court so that the

rule of law is preserved and people may not lose faith in it,

finding violations at the hands of supposed implementers. The

problem is not of the absence of law, but of its implementation.

3. Considering such large-scale flagrant violations, this Court

had to prioritise as to which violations may be taken up first and

then issue appropriate directions. In this view, at first instance,

directions were issued in respect of shifting of hazardous and

noxious industries out of Delhi. Directions were also issued for

shifting of heavy and large industries as also some extensive

industries. For shifting polluting industries had to be given

topmost priority. Later, directions were issued for shifting of

other extensive industries considering the continued

unauthorised use contrary to master plan and zonal plan, by

those industries as well as some other industries continuing in

residential/non-conforming areas.

5. With regard to commercial use of premises in residential

areas, it has been more than three years i.e. 30-9-2002 when the

order was made directing respondents to file reply. In fact, the

question of misuse of residential premises for commercial

purposes was taken up even earlier as is apparent from the orders

dated 31-7-2001 and 20-2-2002. By order dated 31-7-2001

13

passed in News Item AQFMY v. Central Pollution Control

Board1

 the Court directed that:

“MCD will also inform this Court in the affidavit to be

filed as to why no requisite action has been taken for

stopping the gross misuse of buildings in the residential

areas for commercial purposes and in the construction of

commercial buildings in residential areas where only

residential usage is permitted.”

6. Again on 20-2-2002, the order dated 31-7-2001 was reiterated

in the following terms:

“MCD is also directed to file within four weeks from

today an affidavit indicating as to what it intends to do for

stopping the misuse of the buildings in the residential areas

which are being used for commercial purposes as has been

directed by this Court’s order dated 31-7-2001. If no

affidavit is filed, the explanation in respect thereof should

be given to the Court by the Municipal Commissioner.”

11. By the impugned judgment dated 31-5-2002, disposing of the

aforenoted writ petition and other connected matters, a Full

Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that neither

under the DMC Act nor under the Delhi Development Act, was

there any power to seal property for its misuse, inter alia, holding

that the power of sealing of premises is drastic as by reason of

such sealing, a person could become homeless, thus, affecting

his human or fundamental rights and that the power of sealing in

relation to misuse has been intentionally excluded from the

provisions of the two Acts. Later, some other matters were also

decided by the High Court following the Full Bench decision.

Those judgments are also under challenge.”

(emphasis supplied)

Following questions were framed by this Court for consideration:

“13. The questions to be determined are:

A. Whether MCD under the DMC Act has power to seal the

premises in case of its misuser?

B. Whether DDA, under the Delhi Development Act, has

also similar power of sealing or not?

C. Directions to be issued in respect of residential

properties used illegally for commercial purposes.

14. In these matters, we are considering only the issue of

misuser. We are not considering the issue of unauthorised

constructions.”

1 W.P. No.725 of 1994 dated 31-7-2001

14

(emphasis supplied)

(ii) It is apparent that the only question for consideration of this Court

was   the   misuse   of   the   residential   premises   for   illegal   or   commercial

purposes. In paragraph 14 (quoted above), this Court made it clear that it

did   not   consider   the   issue   of   unauthorized   constructions.     This   Court

considered the plight of the residential areas in para 33 of the judgment,

where it noted large­scale conversion of residential premises for commercial

use, thus:

“33. Keeping future needs in view, experts prepare master plans.

Perusal of the Delhi Master Plans, 1962 and 2001 shows what

were plan projections. At the time of planning, the experts in the

field of town planning take into account various aspects, such as,

healthy living, environment, lung space need, land use intensity,

areas where the residential houses are to be built and where the

commercial buildings are to be located, need of household

industries, etc. Provision for household industries in residential

areas does not mean converting residential houses into

commercial shops. It only means permitting activities of

household industry in a part of a residential property. It does not

mean that residential properties can be used for commercial and

trading activities and sale and purchase of goods. Master plan

contemplates shops in district centres, community centres, local

shopping centres, etc. and not in residential areas. Be that as it

may, for the present, we are not considering the cases of small

shops opened in residential houses for catering to day-to-day

basic needs, but are considering large-scale conversion, in

flagrant violation of laws, of residential premises for commercial

use.”

(emphasis supplied)

(iii) The   court   further   considered   that   none   has   the   right,   human   or

fundamental, to violate the law with immunity and claim any right to use a

building for a purpose other than authorized, thus: 

“35. In the impugned judgment, while dealing with the

provisions of the layout plan, it was observed that the provisions

for user “are only regulatory in nature”. While dealing with the

15

user, the High Court observed that “the power, whereby and

whereunder the basic human rights or the fundamental rights

conferred upon a person is taken away, must be specifically

conferred by a statute”. The provisions of user may be regulatory

but all the same, they are mandatory and binding. In fact, almost

all the planning provisions are regulatory. The violations of the

regulatory provisions on massive scale can result in plans

becoming merely scraps of paper. That is the ground reality in

the capital of the country. None has any right, human or

fundamental, to violate the law with immunity and claim any

right to use a building for a purpose other than authorised.

Further, the words “unless the context otherwise requires” in

Section 331 of the DMC Act are of no consequence for

determining the point in issue as the context herein does not

provide otherwise for the present purposes. It does not provide

that the power of sealing under Section 345-A cannot be

exercised in case of misuser. In view of the clear language of

Section 345-A, we are also unable to sustain the view of the

High Court that action under Section 345-A can be taken only

when there exists order of demolition under Section 343 or an

order under sub-section (1) of Section 344. The conclusion of the

High Court that action under Section 345-A can be taken only

when there exists an order of demolition under Section 343, or

on passing of an order under sub-section (1) of Section 344, and

in no other contingency cannot be accepted in view of the clear

provision of Section 345-A that action can be taken even before

or after an order is made under those provisions.”

(emphasis supplied)

(iv) The court eventually issued directions in respect of other residential

properties used illegally for commercial purposes, thus:

“47. In special leave petitions and Civil Appeals Nos.608-11 of

2003 challenge is to the judgments of the High Court disposing

of writ petitions in terms of law laid down by the Full Bench.

50. In respect of CA No.608 of 2003, MCD issued to the

respondents, a show-cause notice dated 1-8-2000 under Section

345-A read with Sections 347, 343 and 344 of the DMC Act

stating that Property No. 39, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar III was

being misused in the name and style of “Jagdish Store”. In reply

dated 15-9-2000, it was, inter alia, stated that MCD itself has

been allowing non-residential activities in residential areas under

a special scheme, without, however, giving any details or filing

any document in support thereof. Further, we asked the learned

counsel for the respondents to place on record the plan for the

construction of the building which may have been sanctioned so

16

as to ascertain whether the sanction was for construction of the

residential property or commercial property. The plan has not

been filed. The reasons are not far to seek. One of the simple

methods for ascertaining that there is misuser or not, is to

examine the sanctioned plan.

51. At this stage, it would be useful to notice letter dated 28-8-

2000 sent by the Ministry of Urban Development to the

Commissioner, MCD, Vice-Chairman, DDA and other

authorities conveying the deep concern of Parliament

Consultative Committee over the rising menace of unauthorised

construction, suspected connivance of the staff of the different

authorities in the matter and requesting the authorities to take

strong and prompt action and suggesting ten measures for strict

enforcement. The letter reads as under:

“Annexure R-1

No. J-13036/3/96-DDIIB

Government of India

Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

Dated: 28-8-2000

To,

1. Shri P.S. Bhatnagar,

Chief Secretary,

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi,

Delhi.

2. Shri P.K. Ghosh,

Vice-Chairman,

Delhi Development Authority,

Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.

3. Shri S.P. Aggarwal,

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Town Hall, Delhi.

4. Shri B.P. Misra,

Chairperson,

New Delhi Municipal Committee,

Palika Kendra, New Delhi.

5. The Development Commissioner,

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi,

Town Hall, New Delhi.

Subject: Unauthorised encroachment and illegal constructions in

Delhi

Sir,

17

I am directed to say that the menace of illegal

encroachment/unauthorised construction in Delhi has been

considered by the Government of India at its highest level and it

has been decided to eliminate this menace with a firm hand. You

are, therefore, requested to take strong and prompt action against

all illegal constructions/unauthorised encroachments and also

against misuses of land in violation of the provisions of the

master plan of Delhi. The following measures are particularly

required to be enforced strictly:

(i) All illegal constructions should be demolished, not

cosmetically but in toto.

(ii) The cost of demolition should be recovered from the

illegal builders within 15 days of demolition. In case of

non-payment within 15 days, the amount due should be

recovered as arrears of land revenue.

(iii) In all cases of illegal constructions, prosecution

should invariably be launched against builders under the

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the Delhi Development

Act, the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, etc. and the

cases followed vigorously with the police

authorities/courts.

(iv) Wherever the property is on lease, action should be

taken under the terms and conditions of lease agreement

and re-entry effected within the shortest permissible period

under such lease agreement. After re-entry, physical

possession of the property should be taken by invoking the

provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act and

damages collected immediately. The rates of

damages/misuse charges should be the same as per the

formula followed by the L&DO and approved by the

Ministry of Urban Development.

(v) In case of DDA flats, where constructions have

come up beyond the condonable limits, cancellation of

allotment should be carried out in addition to the

demolition of the additional construction. Orders in respect

of condonable and non-condonable items are being issued

separately.

(vi) In cases, where after demolition, reconstruction is

done, personal responsibility of the officer-in-charge should

be fixed and departmental action taken against him.

(vii) In cases where illegal constructions have taken

place on rural agricultural lands, action under the

provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, should

also be taken and such lands should be taken over as per

provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Action in this

respect should be taken as soon as the plots are cut by the

18

colonisers and construction done in the shape of boundary

walls, etc. In other words, construction should be nipped in

the bud. If it comes up, it should be demolished

immediately. Action in this respect should also be taken by

the local agencies concerned/DDA as per the bye-laws

pertaining to layout/service plans, etc.

(viii) In all cases where party obtains stay/status quo

orders, prompt action to get the stay order vacated should

be taken and higher court moved, wherever necessary.

(ix) All Senior Field Officers should be asked to carry

out physical inspection of the area under their charge and

the Supervising Officer should also make surprise checks to

ensure that the subordinate staff takes immediate action to

check/demolish unauthorised construction. Deterrent action

should also be taken against the subordinate staff such as

Building Inspectors, Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers,

etc. who do not take prompt action.

(x) Field Officers should be asked to maintain field

diaries and submit them to the Supervisory Officer

regularly.

2. It is also requested that a monthly report should be sent to the

Ministry of Urban Development by the 5th of each succeeding

month.

3. In this connection, it may be noted that both Parliament and

the Parliament Consultative Committee have expressed deep

concern, through questions and interpolations, over the rising

menace of unauthorised constructions in Delhi and the suspected

connivance of the staff of the different authorities in the matter.

A flying squad has been constituted in the Ministry and if, as a

result of findings of this squad, it is found that the subordinate

staff has not done its duty or not carried out the aforesaid

instructions, strict action against the subordinate/supervisory

staff would be taken by the Government.

Yours faithfully,

 Sd./-

(Dr. Nivedita P. Haran)

Joint Secretary to the Government of India

Copy for information and necessary action to:

1. Deputy CVO, Ministry of UD&PA,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. L&DO, Ministry of UD&PA, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. DG(W), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

 Sd/-

(N.L. Upadhyay)

19

53. Now, we revert to the task of implementation. Despite its

difficulty, this Court cannot remain a mute spectator when the

violations also affect the environment and healthy living of lawabiders. The enormity of the problem which, to a great extent, is

the doing of the authorities themselves, does not mean that a

beginning should not be made to set things right. If the entire

misuser cannot be stopped at one point of time because of its

extensive nature, then it has to be stopped in a phased manner,

beginning with major violators. There has to be a will to do it.

We have hereinbefore noted in brief the orders made in the last

so many years but it seems the same has had no effect on the

authorities. The things cannot be permitted to go on in this

manner forever. On one hand, various laws are enacted, master

plans are prepared by expert planners, provision is made in the

plans also to tackle the problem of existing unauthorised

constructions and misusers and, on the other hand, such illegal

activities go on unabated openly under the gaze of everyone,

without having any respect and regard for law and other citizens.

We have noticed above the complaints of some of the residents

in respect of such illegalities. For the last number of years even

the High Court has been expressing similar anguish in the orders

made in large number of cases. We may briefly notice some of

those orders.”

(emphasis supplied)

(v) The court focused on the misuse of the property and further observed

in para 61 regarding misuse thus: 

“61. Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of the High

Court and this Court, the enforcement of the laws and the

implementations of the orders are utterly lacking. If the laws are

not enforced and the orders of the courts to enforce and

implement the laws are ignored, the result can only be total

lawlessness. It is, therefore, necessary to also identify and take

appropriate action against officers responsible for this state of

affairs. Such blatant misuse of properties at large-scale cannot

take place without connivance of the officers concerned. It is

also a source of corruption. Therefore, action is also necessary to

check corruption, nepotism and total apathy towards the rights of

the citizens. Those who own the properties that are misused have

also implied responsibility towards the hardship, inconvenience,

suffering caused to the residents of the locality and injuries to

third parties. It is, therefore, not only the question of stopping the

misuser but also making the owners at default accountable for

the injuries caused to others. Similar would also be the

20

accountability of errant officers as well since, prima facie, such

large-scale misuser, in violation of laws, cannot take place

without the active connivance of the officers. It would be for the

officers to show what effective steps were taken to stop the

misuser.”

(vi)  Ultimately, the court has passed the following order while appointing

the Monitoring Committee:

“69. Having held that the Commissioner of MCD has power

under the DMC Act to seal premises in case of its misuser, we

issue the following directions for taking immediate steps to seal

residential premises being used for commercial purpose:

1. MCD shall within 10 days give wide publicity in the

leading newspapers directing major violations on main roads

(some instances of such violators and roads have been noted

hereinbefore) to stop misuser on their own, within the period of

30 days.

2. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/occupier to file

within 30 days an affidavit with the Commissioner of MCD

stating that the misuser has been stopped.

3. In case misuser is not stopped, sealing of the premises shall

commence after 30 days, from the date of public notice, first

taking up the violations on roads which are 80 ft wide and more.

All authorities are directed to render full assistance and

cooperation. After expiry of 30 days from the date of public

notice, electricity and water supply shall be disconnected.

4. Details of the roads and the violations shall also be placed

on the website by MCD and copies also sent to Resident Welfare

Associations of the area which should be involved in the process

of sealing of misuser. The Commissioner of MCD shall file an

affidavit, within two weeks, in terms of directions contained in

this judgment, whereafter directions for constitution of the

monitoring committee would be issued. The sealing would be

effected by the officers authorised by the Commissioner of MCD

in consultation with the monitoring committee.

5. The appropriate directions for action, if any, against the

officers responsible for the misuse and for payment of

compensation by them and by violators would be issued after the

misuser is stopped.

6. None will tamper with the seals. Any tampering with seal

will be sternly dealt with. Tampering with seal will include

opening another entrance for use of premises.

21

7. It would be open to the owner/occupier to approach the

Commissioner for removal of the seal on giving undertaking that

the premises would be put to only authorised use.

8. Particulars of cases where violators may have obtained

orders of stay will be filed in this Court by MCD.

9. MCD shall file monthly status report as to action taken by

15th of each month commencing from 10-4-2006.

10. In case misuser is not stopped in the premises involved in

the civil appeals and special leave petitions, subject to what is

stated in this judgment, MCD will take immediate steps to seal

those premises soon after expiry of 30 days.”

(emphasis supplied)

It is clear from the above­mentioned order dated 16.2.2006 in  M.C.

Mehta   v.   Union   of   India  (supra)   that   this   Court   noted   unauthorized

construction but appointed the Monitoring Committee to put a restraint on

the  misuse  of  the   residential  premises  for  the  unauthorized/commercial

purpose.  Pursuant to the order dated 16.2.2006, the Monitoring Committee

was formed on 24.3.2006.

20. The court again emphasized that its order should be carried out in

letter and spirit in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India reported in (2006)

3 SCC 429 passed on 24.3.2006 thus:

“4. In order to oversee the implementation of the law, namely,

sealing of offending premises in terms of the letter and spirit of

this Court’s directions, it is necessary to appoint a Monitoring

Committee instead of leaving any discretion with the officers of

MCD. Accordingly, we appoint a Monitoring Committee

comprising of Mr K.J. Rao, Former Advisor to the Election

Commissioner, Mr Bhure Lal, Chairman, EPCA and Major

General (Retd.) Som Jhingan. We direct that all necessary

facilities shall be supplied by MCD to the members of the

Monitoring Committee, including the facility of transport,

secretarial services, honorarium, etc.

9. IAs Nos.1921, 1922 and 1923 have been filed by three

associations whereas IAs Nos.1918-19 have been filed by an

individual business house. The applicant of IA No.1919 has filed

22

an affidavit giving an undertaking to this Court to stop the

misuser within the time granted by this Court. The applications

filed on behalf of the associations state that in the event of this

Court granting time, they would ensure that the benefit of time is

given only to those who file individual affidavit and undertaking

as per the directions of this Court. In the order dated 16-2-2006,

the Court has already pointed out the extent, nature and

magnitude of the contravention of various laws. Be that as it

may, we grant not only to the applicant associations or their

members but to others too, time to stop the misuser up to 30-6-

2006 subject to every individual claiming such benefit filing

affidavit stating that (1) on or before 30-6-2006, misuser shall be

stopped and no further extension on any ground whatsoever shall

be asked for, (2) giving an undertaking to the effect that violation

of condition of not stopping the misuser by 30-6-2006 would

subject him/her to the offence of perjury and contempt of court

for violation of the order of the Court. The benefit will be

available only to those who file the affidavit with MCD on or

before 28-3-2006.”

(emphasis supplied)

This Court directed to prevent misuse of the property in accordance

with the previous order to mean that residential premises/ area should not

be   used   for   commercial   purposes.   A   large   number   of   reports   of   the

Monitoring Committee carried ‘Caption’  “REPORT  OF   THE  MONITORING

COMMITTEE,   SEALING   OF   THE   COMMERCIAL   ESTABLISHMENTS   IN

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES”.

21. In Report No.8, the Monitoring Committee reported liquor shops in

convenient/local shopping centers located in residential areas and other

professional activities. This Court passed an order on 18.10.2006 regarding

Report No.8 thus: 

"I.A.No.1983:

In view of the order passed in I.A.No.1980 above, this

application stands disposed of.

Report No.8 of the Monitoring Committee:

We have perused the 8th report of the Monitoring

23

Committee dated 17th October, 2006.

The recommendation contained in para 1 of the report,

except last three lines, are accepted. The said three lines read as

under:

“In addition, it is presumed by the Monitoring Committee

that small shops will also be allowed in A & B category of

colonies as per the Hon’ble Court’s order dated

29.09.2006.”

The learned Solicitor General, on instructions, states that

the Government is not contemplating to allow small shops in

colonies of category A & B. In this view of the stand, the aforequoted recommendation is not accepted.

In respect of para 4 of the report relating to the sealing of

liquor shops in convenient/local shopping centres located in

residential areas, we find no ground to direct sealing of liquor

shops. The convenient/local shopping centres are in the

commercial areas earmarked in residential areas and there does

not appear to be any legal impediment for the liquor trade to be

conducted from the said commercial areas. However, the liquor

trade cannot be permitted to be carried on in mixed land use

since the first floor onwards are expected to be used for

residential purposes only and thus liquor trade in such residential

areas cannot be allowed to be continued. This part of

recommendation in para 4 of the report is accepted.

Regarding recommendations 5 and 6 regarding

professional activities and the basement are concerned, learned

Solicitor General states that since the matter is under

consideration of the Government, for the present, the sealing in

respect thereof may not be continued. Learned counsel further

states that it will take about six weeks to decide these matters.

Further, it may be noted that in para 21(v)(e) of our order dated

29th September, 2006, for illustrative purpose, only four

professions were mentioned but it is clear that other professions

are not excluded. The term ‘professionals’ has been made

inclusive by use of the word ‘including’. In view of the above,

for the present, sealing need not continue in respect of the

activities mentioned in para 5 and 6 of the report of the

Monitoring Committee.

The recommendation in regard to desealing, contained in

para 7 of the report, is also accepted.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to file its

report/response, within four weeks, in regard to what is stated by

the Monitoring Committee in para 8, namely, large number of

building basement, lower basement, ground floor + four floors

having come up in blatant violation of the Building Bye Laws.

In view of the time having been extended as above, the

matter, instead of November, 2006, be now listed in February,

24

2007.

The Monitoring Committee is directed to supply copy of

each of its report to learned Solicitor General and learned

counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.”

(emphasis supplied)

It is apparent from the report that it was with respect to misuse of the

residential premises for commercial purpose and unauthorized constructions

on public land.

22. On 15.11.2006, this Court exempted ration shops and cycle repair

shops   running   in   residential   premises   from   sealing.     Report   No.12   was

considered with respect to the misuse of residential premises for commercial

purposes.

23. This Court passed further order on 23.11.2006, which was also with

respect to misuse of the premises.  Undertakings were filed to the effect that

they have stopped commercial activities in the residential premises. The

relevant portion of the order dated 23.11.2006 is extracted hereunder:

“Subject to what we note hereinafter, persons who have either

earlier or now have stopped commercial activity in terms of the

undertakings/ affidavits filed but are covered by the two

notifications above-noted, having regard to the peculiar facts and

circumstances, are temporarily relieved of the undertakings and

placed at par with other covered by Direction No.3 of the order

dated 29th September, 2006. The conditions stipulated in the said

Direction No.3 would be applicable to such traders/

professionals. The present order is in continuation of the orders

passed on 29th September, 2006, 18th October, 2006, 6th

November, 2006 and 15th November, 2006.

However, thirty four establishments mentioned in Annexure

‘A’ will not be entitled to above concession. The Monitoring

Committee can verify ad if they have not ceased commercial

activity, the premises shall be sealed and it be ensured that

commercial activity is not carried on by them.

*** *** ***

25

In Paragraph (4), it has been noticed that, on a surprise check,

some buildings were noticed on which certain sofas were put on

each floor to give it a residential look even through no one

appears to be living in it and the impression was that though

building was sanctioned only for residential purposes and no

commercial activity was going on but fresh commercial activity

may commence. According to the Municipal Corporation of

Delhi, as noted therein, where commercial activity has not yet

commenced, building can be booked for violation of building

plans. Directions are sought that Municipal Corporation of Delhi

be asked to issue public notice that no commercial activity/ fresh

commercial activity shall be allowed without first getting the

building plans approved and on registration and payment of

conversion and parking charges. Example of one such stretch of

road is mentioned in Paragraph (4) from Mool Chand Hospital

crossing to Ashram Chowk. It is to be made clear that no fresh

commercial activity in building sanctioned for residential

purposes can be allowed and on violation being noticed, it would

be the personal liability of the Deputy Commission of the

concerned zone to take appropriate action. It will also be the

personal liability of the concerned Station House Officer to

inform the concerned officers in the Municipal Corporation of

Delhi. If, despite that, the commercial activity is noticed, these

officers shall have to be held personally liable for the

consequences. Simply booking a building for violation of

building plans on paper has proved to be totally ineffective.

There are thousands of buildings which have been booked by the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the las number of years but on

paper only without any action. The Municipal Corporation of

Delhi, as suggested in Paragraph (4), shall issue public notice in

consultation with the Monitoring Committee.”

It is apparent from the order that the report and the order pertained to

misuse of the residential premises for commercial purposes.

24. The  order  dated  12.2.2007  was  in relation  to  the  stopping  of  the

sealing   by   the   Monitoring   Committee   at   the   instance   of   the   Municipal

Corporation  of  Delhi  and  the  Delhi   Development   Authority  until  further

orders.  It was to be operative only concerning those premises covered under

the MPD­2021 and not for those which were not covered by the Master Plan.

Following order was passed on 12.2.2007:

26

“….In view of this arrangement, the interim order stopping

sealing by the Monitoring Committee with the assistance of

MCD and DDA shall remain operative until further orders. This

order shall be operative only in respect of those premises which

are covered by the Master Plan, 2021 and not for those which are

not covered by the Master Plan. ….”

25. The order dated 9.3.2007 was passed to comply with the order dated

12.2.2007.  Following order was passed by this Court on 9.3.2007:

“We have perused the Report No.31 of the Monitoring

Committee. It needs no reiteration that our order dated

12.2.2007 shall be carried out to its logical end. Needless to say

all authorities concerned shall ensure compliance of our order.”

It is apparent from the order dated 9.3.2007 that the order is in

consonance with the said report, and the report clarifies that it was for

commercial activities and mixed land use.  The Monitoring Committee itself

sought   permission   for   continuation   of   sealing   of   the   portion   of   the

commercial establishment in the residential areas, which were not covered

by MPD­2021.   Thus, the confusion sought to be created based on MPD2021 is absolutely unjustified.   The order dated 10.4.2007 is an interim

order stopping sealing by the Monitoring Committee.   This Court did not

authorize the Monitoring Committee to seal the residential properties being

used for residential purposes.   The order is of no relevance to decide the

question of the authority of the Monitoring Committee.

26. On   IA   No.22,   this   Court   in   its   order   dated   10.4.2007   considered

Report No.34, contents of which are placed by following orders:

“We are shocked to find that in spite of our earlier orders,

there has been a total sense of non-cooperation exhibited by the

M.C.D. and the police officials. The report of the Monitoring

Committee shows that on 03.04.2007, 04.04.2007 and

27

09.04.2007, the police authorities did not cooperate in the matter

of sealing of the unauthorized premises.

Let the Commissioner of Delhi Police and the concerned area

Police Officers appear in person on 11.04.2007 before this Court

and file affidavits indicating as to under what circumstances the

orders of this Court were not carried out and there was non

cooperation in the matter of sealing. Similar shall be the position

so far as the Commissioner, M.C.D. is concerned.

The matter shall be listed tomorrow, i.e. 11.04.2007 for this

purpose only.

These cases shall be listed on 07.05.2007. Before that date,

learned solicitor General shall indicate the time schedule during

which the various infrastructural deficiencies pointed out by

leaned Amicus-Curiae are expected to be taken care of. It needs

no reiteration that areas which are not covered by the Master

Plan are not exempted from sealing operations. Only those areas

and constructions which are prima facie covered by the Master

Plan, shall be left out of sealing operations.

Report No.34 of the Monitoring Committee shall be kept in a

sealed cover.

Copies of the Monitoring Committee’s said Report shall be

given only to the learned counsel for M.C.D., Delhi Police and

learned Solicitor General.

The Charts submitted by Learned A.C. be kept on record. If

any person, who has interest in the litigation wants to have a say

in the matter, that can only be routed through learned AmicusCuriae. The necessary information and materials be given to

learned Amicus-Curiae.

The response of the DDA shall also be filed which shall be

taken on record.”

Report No.34 was not regarding premises used purely for residential

purposes.

27. This   Court   passed   an   order   on   3.1.2012,   which   is   extracted

hereunder:

“After hearing Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned amicus on Report

No.85 and related issues and considering the submissions made

by other learned counsel, we deem it proper to hear the main

matter involving challenge to the validity of the law enacted by

Parliament and the notifications issued by the Central

Government.

List the case on 13.3.2012. It is expected that on that day no

request will be made for adjournment. 

28

Till the matter is heard by the Court, the Monitoring

Committee shall not order further sealing of the premises which

are under its scrutiny.

We also direct that no construction, temporary or permanent,

shall be made on the premises which have been subject matter of

scrutiny of the Monitoring Committee and no order shall be

passed by the Government or any authority regularising such

construction or sanction the change of user.

The Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi Municipal

Corporation and Municipal Corporation of Delhi are directed to

ensure that no encroachment is made on any public land,

whether belonging to the Government or any public authority.

They shall also ensure that no illegal construction is made on any

of the properties which has been subject matter of scrutiny by the

Monitoring Committee.

The Monitoring Committee shall be entitled to inspect the

premises in which any illegal construction may have been made

after this order or any encroachment on public land or

regularisation and if necessary, submit report to this Court.

Any person desirous of getting a copy of any report of the

Monitoring Committee may make an application to the

Monitoring committee and the required report be furnished to the

applicant within a period of ten days on payment of usual

charges.

It is also made clear that any party shall be free to file an

appropriate application before the Monitoring Committee for its

consideration and appropriate order.

 IA Nos.2518-2521

Shri M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for

the applicants state that in view of the developments which have

taken place after the last order of the Court, the applications have

become infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such.

In view of the statement of learned senior counsel, IA

Nos.2518-2521 are disposed of as infructuous. We hope and trust

that the order passed by the Monitoring Committee will be

implemented at the earliest.”

(emphasis supplied)

It was ordered that the Monitoring Committee shall do no further

sealing of the premises, which are under its scrutiny.   No construction,

temporary or permanent, shall be raised, which is the subject matter of the

scrutiny of the Monitoring Committee. No order shall be passed by the

Government or any authority regularizing such construction or sanction the

29

user's change.

28. The order dated 30.04.2013 was passed regarding the misuse/nonconforming use of the residential premises thus: 

“3. The judgment in regard to the misuse/non-conforming use of

residential premises, and power to seal premises, arising in IA

No.22, as also, several appeals filed by the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ’MCD’) which

arose out of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court were decided

by a judgment dated 16.2.2006 and is reported as, "M.C. Mehta

vs. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 399". It was, inter alia, held

that the MCD had power to seal the premises for nonconforming user in terms of Section 345 A of the MCD Act, and

various directions were issued.

4. These cases relate to the matter of non-conforming user of

premises, and the orders passed thereon, after the judgment of

16.2.2006, under the special provisions made by the Parliament

qua Delhi, the various provisions of the Master Plan which

according to some of the petitioners were flawed because of the

non-availability of the physical and social infrastructure.”

Further, this Court observed with respect to authority or scope of the

Monitoring Committee and the purpose for which the Monitoring Committee

was appointed thus: 

 “8. (i) We had, as noticed above, by our order dated 24.3.2006,

appointed the Monitoring Committee for looking into the aspect

of sealing of premises, which were being put to the nonconforming user. The Monitoring Committee had ordered the

sealing of those premises. Against which, a large number of the

applicants have approached the Court (by filing writ petitions

which were converted into IAs, or by filing IAs) praying for

desealing. All the said IAs are still pending consideration before

this Court. We propose to issue appropriate directions in the said

IAs as well. …”

29. On 6.12.2017, this Court reserved its orders on IA Nos.93010 and

93007 of 2017, which were decided on 15.12.2017.   In the order dated

6.12.2007, this Court considered the matter with respect to unauthorized

colonies, which came up as per reports dated 12.4.2016 and 30.10.2017.   It

was observed in the order that the power of the Monitoring Committee be

30

restored. While the order was reserved on the aforesaid date on IA No.93010

and 93007 of 2017, the relevant portion is extracted:

“1. Invaders have pillaged Delhi for hundreds of years, but for

the last couple of decades it is being ravaged by its own citizens

and officials governing the capital city – we refer to

unauthorized constructions and misuse of residential premises

for industrial and other commercial purposes. This Court has

focussed on these illegal activities in several decisions and has

issued directions from time to time to try and bring some sanity

to urban living but to little or no effect. The applications before

us, the chronology of events and the historical developments

leading up to these applications has given cause to reflect and

decide on some of these issues keeping our constitutional

obligations in mind.

3. M.C. Mehta, an environmental activist, had already moved

this Court with an application to find a remedy for the air

pollution in Delhi in a pending writ petition. Although he sought

several reliefs, this Court first concentrated on use of residential

areas for industrial purposes and later, the misuse of residential

premises for other commercial activities. For the present, we are

concerned with the misuse of residential premises for other

commercial activities. These issues first arose when preliminary

orders were passed by this Court on his application on 30th

September, 2002 and 19th August, 2003. Thereafter, this Court

addressed the issue of residential areas being used for industrial

purposes by a judgment and order dated 7th May, 2004 in M.C.

Mehta v. Union of India.2

*** ***       ***

10. Having passed orders on 7th May, 2004 relating to

unauthorized industrial activity in Delhi and being compelled to

set up a Monitoring Committee, this Court focused its attention

on yet another problem facing the citizens of Delhi, namely, that

of misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes. In the

decision dated 16th February, 2006 in M.C. Mehta, this Court

noted in paragraph 53 of the Report that it cannot remain a mute

spectator when violations of the law affect the environment and

the healthy living of those who abide by the law. It was stated,

and the pain and anguish of this Court is quite apparent:

“Despite its difficulty, this Court cannot remain a

mute spectator when the violations also affect the

environment and healthy living of law-abiders. The

enormity of the problem which, to a great extent, is

the doing of the authorities themselves, does not mean

2

(2004) 6 SCC 588

31

that a beginning should not be made to set things

right. If the entire misuser cannot be stopped at one

point of time because of its extensive nature, then it

has to be stopped in a phased manner, beginning with

major violators. There has to be a will to do it. We

have hereinbefore noted in brief the orders made in

the last so many years but it seems the same has had

no effect on the authorities. The things cannot be

permitted to go on in this manner forever. On one

hand, various laws are enacted, master plans are

prepared by expert planners, provision is made in the

plans also to tackle the problem of existing

unauthorised constructions and misusers and, on the

other hand, such illegal activities go on unabated

openly under the gaze of everyone, without having

any respect and regard for law and other citizens.”

[Emphasis supplied by us].

11. This Court observed that if the laws are not enforced and

orders of the Courts to implement the laws are ignored, the result

can only be total lawlessness. In the decision rendered on 16th

February, 2006 this Court noted, quite explicitly and not in a

veiled manner, that blatant misuse of properties in Delhi for

commercial purposes on such a large-scale could not take place

without the connivance of the officers and that it was therefore

necessary to take action to check corruption, nepotism and total

apathy towards the rights of citizens – and we may add, chaos

and disaster. This Court noted that there must be some

accountability not only of those violating the law but also of

those errant officers who turn a blind eye to the misuse of

residential premises for commercial purposes. It was observed in

paragraph 61 of the Report as follows:

“Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of

the [Delhi] High Court and this Court, the

enforcement of the laws and the implementations of

the orders are utterly lacking. If the laws are not

enforced and the orders of the courts to enforce and

implement the laws are ignored, the result can only be

total lawlessness. It is, therefore, necessary to also

identify and take appropriate action against officers

responsible for this state of affairs. Such blatant

misuse of properties at large-scale cannot take place

without connivance of the officers concerned. It is

also a source of corruption. Therefore, action is also

necessary to check corruption, nepotism and total

apathy towards the rights of the citizens. Those who

32

own the properties that are misused have also implied

responsibility towards the hardship, inconvenience,

suffering caused to the residents of the locality and

injuries to third parties. It is, therefore, not only the

question of stopping the misuser but also making the

owners at default accountable for the injuries caused

to others. Similar would also be the accountability of

errant officers as well since, prima facie, such largescale misuser, in violation of laws, cannot take place

without the active connivance of the officers. It would

be for the officers to show what effective steps were

taken to stop the misuser.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

12. In view of the above, this Court directed the Delhi Municipal

Corporation (for short the MCD) to give wide publicity in

leading newspapers of the requirement that those misusing their

residential premises for commercial purposes should cease the

misuse on their own. It was also directed that 30 days after the

issuance of the public notices, and if the misuse is not stopped,

the process of sealing the premises would start. The period of 30

days expired on or about 29th March, 2006.

13. Unfortunately, issuance of the public notices had no impact

either on those violating the law or on those expected to

implement the rule of law. Perhaps, as observed by this Court,

the reason was connivance, corruption, nepotism and total apathy

towards the rights of the citizens of Delhi - who are today facing

the brunt of the decades of illegalities having been committed

14. Faced with this situation, in its decision of 24th March, 2006

in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India3

 this Court observed that the

MCD had issued appropriate notices but, to oversee the

implementation of the law regarding residential premises used

for commercial (nonindustrial) purposes, it would be appropriate

to seal offending premises. Therefore, rather than leave any

discretion to the officers of the MCD (for obvious reasons) a

Monitoring Committee was appointed consisting of Mr. K.J.

Rao, Former Advisor to the Election Commissioner, Mr. Bhure

Lal, Chairman, EPCA and Major General (Retd.) Som Jhingan.

All necessary facilities to the members of the Monitoring

Committee were directed to be provided by the MCD including

facility of transport, secretarial services, honorarium etc.

*** *** ***

29. On 30th April, 2013 this Court passed a significant judgment

and order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.4

 This decision related

3 W.P.(C) No.4677 of 1985

4

(2013) 16 SCC 336

33

to the challenge to the Act and subsequent legislations extending

the provisions of the Act. A few directions were issued but two

of them need particular mention: (i) All the writ petitions

challenging the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 (and

subsequent legislations virtually extending the provisions of the

Act) and I.As. connected therewith were transferred to the Delhi

High Court with a request to hear the matters at an early date,

preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the entire

records and papers. (ii) The order passed by this Court on 3rd

January, 2012 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India5

 to the following

effect would continue:

“Till the matter is heard by the Court, the Monitoring

Committee shall not order further sealing of the

premises which are under its scrutiny. We also direct

that no construction, temporary or permanent, shall be

made on the premises which have been the subjectmatter of scrutiny of the Monitoring Committee and

no order shall be passed by the Government or any

authority regularising such construction or sanction

the change of user.”

34. It seems to us that the applicants are keen to utilise the

premises in question for residential purposes, as stated in their

application. There is no apparent intention to utilise the premises

in question for commercial purposes or for any purpose not

permitted by law. That being the position, it would hardly serve

any purpose if the applicants are required to formally file an

appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which is apparently already

dealing with a very large number of appeals. It would, therefore,

be in the fitness of things to de-seal the premises in question for

residential purposes subject to certain conditions.

Directions

35. In our opinion, as far as Infinity Knowledge Systems is

concerned the following conditions would meet the ends of

justice and also provide a safeguard against possible misuse of

residential premises for commercial (nonindustrial) purposes:

(1) The applicants will file an affidavit before the

Monitoring Committee stating that they will use the

premises in question only for residential purposes and for

no other purpose whatsoever. The applicants will identify

the persons for whose residential use the premises in

question are sought to be desealed. Any change will be

5

(2012) 11 SCC 759

34

notified to the Monitoring Committee.

(2) The affidavit filed by the applicants will state the name,

address and other particulars of the person who will be

responsible for any misuse of the premises in question, that

is, for use of the premises in question for any purpose other

than residential.

(3) The person identified as the person responsible in terms

of condition No.2 above will also file an affidavit clearly

stating therein that he or she will ensure that the premises

in question are used only for residential purposes and that

in the event the premises in question are used for any

purpose other than residential, the deponent would be liable

for contempt of this Court.

(4) The applicants will file with the Monitoring Committee

proof of payment of conversion charges to the statutory

authority.

(5) The affidavits will be filed before the Monitoring

Committee who may impose such other further conditions

as may be appropriate.

36. In the event the Monitoring Committee is satisfied that the

premises in question ought to be de-sealed, it may require the

concerned statutory authority to de-seal the premises in question.

If the Monitoring Committee is not satisfied that the premises in

question ought to be desealed, the applicants will be at liberty to

approach this Court for appropriate orders. We make it clear that

in view of Report No. 46 dated 12th November, 2007 this Order

will not be applicable to all other commercial activities that have

been sealed in the premises in question.

37. We make it clear that henceforth it will not be necessary for

any person whose residential premises have been sealed for

misuse for any commercial (other than industrial) purposes at the

instance of the Monitoring Committee to file an appeal before

the appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal. Instead, that person

can directly approach the Monitoring Committee for relief after

depositing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Monitoring

Committee which will keep an account of the amounts received

by it. Any person who has already filed an appeal before the

appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal but would prefer

approaching the Monitoring Committee may withdraw the

appeal and approach the Monitoring Committee for relief on the

above terms and conditions and on deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- as

costs with the Monitoring Committee, provided that the premises

were sealed at the instance of the Monitoring Committee. Any

challenge to the decision of the Monitoring Committee will lie to

this Court only. We are constrained and compelled to make this

35

order given the history of the case and the more than serious

observations of this Court of an apparent nexus between some

entities and the observations regarding corruption and nepotism.

38. We make it clear that this order will inure to the benefit of

only those who are using residential premises for commercial

purposes (nonindustrial) or for any other non-residential purpose

and whose premises were sealed at the instance of the

Monitoring Committee. This order will not at all inure for the

benefit of anybody using residential premises for any industrial

activity of any sort or nature whatsoever.

39. With regard to the writ petitions that have been transferred to

the Delhi High Court which challenge the Act and subsequent

legislations, we find from a perusal of the website of the Delhi

High Court that these petitions have not yet been heard, for one

reason or another. We do not find any fault with the Delhi High

Court. The intention of this Court in transferring the writ

petitions to the Delhi High Court was for their expeditious

disposal preferably within one year. Almost four years have gone

by in this exercise but without any decision. Therefore, given the

gravity of the situation as revealed from the Reports of the

Monitoring Committee, we think it appropriate that this Court

ought to hear the writ petitions on an expeditious basis and,

accordingly, withdraw the writ petitions that were transferred to

the Delhi High Court to this Court. The Registry will place these

writ petitions on receipt from the Delhi High Court for directions

on 12th January, 2018.”

The order clarifies that the Monitoring Committee was to look into the

misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes (non­industrial) or

any non­residential purpose. 

30. There is yet another order dated 24.4.2018 passed by this Court, thus:

“We have heard learned amicus curiae as well as learned

Additional Solicitor General (Mr. Nadkarni) appearing for the

Union of India, learned Additional Solicitor General (Mr.

Maninder Singh) appearing for the DDA and learned counsel for

Government of Delhi and other bodies.

Mr. K.C. Naik, Member Secretary and Officiating

Chairman of the Central Ground Water Board is present. He has

been requested to give us the status of ground water level in 20

36

points in Delhi from the year 2000 onwards every five years

including for the year 2017/2018 so that we are in a position to

understand whether there has been a depletion of ground water

and in which area and to what extent. This may be done in the

form of a chart as well as in the form of a Plan/graph/map.

 It has been brought to our notice by learned amicus

 curiae that an order was passed by this Court on 27th August,

2007 which is quoted in Report No.114 to the effect that

construction is being carried out in unauthorized colonies. This

has been possible because the building and other bye-laws do not

apply to these unauthorized colonies. Consequently,

unauthorized colonies are placed in a better position than

authorized colonies. It has been recorded by this Court in the

order dated 27th August, 2007 that unauthorized colonies cannot

be placed in a better position than authorized colonies.

In view of this situation, we direct that there should not be

any further construction in unauthorized colonies including on

public land beyond the existing building and other bye-laws.

Consequently, all building and construction activity in the

unauthorized colonies including on public land is stopped with

immediate effect beyond the existing building and other byelaws applicable to authorized colonies. The concerned authorities

will ensure compliance.

It has been submitted by learned Additional Solicitor

General (Mr. Nadkarni) that a Task Force is contemplated that

will ensure that the orders of this Court and the applicable byelaws are implemented and encroachments, etc. as well as

unauthorized constructions are removed.

The Task Force as suggested by learned Additional

Solicitor General (Mr. Nadkarni) may be constituted with

immediate effect.

As a first step, the Task Force should remove

encroachments on public roads, public streets and pedestrian

streets, as mentioned in the immediate action submitted by Mr.

Nadkarni in a Revised Note dated 18th April, 2018. The needful

should be done within a period of two weeks from today.

We make it clear that the Monitoring Committee may

suggest to the Task Force the areas where immediate action is

required to be taken.

It is stated by learned Additional Solicitor General (Mr.

Maninder Singh) that about 27.02 acres of public land has been

taken over by the Delhi Development Authority since 1st April,

2018. The details of this have not been mentioned. An affidavit

should be filed giving full details of the 27.02 acres of public

land that has been taken over by the Delhi Development

Authority from unauthorized encroachments.

List the matter on 15th May, 2018.”

37

(emphasis supplied)

31. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 24.4.2018

for the constitution of the Special Task Force, an Office Memorandum dated

25.4.2018 was issued, which was not with respect to the conferral of powers

on the Monitoring Committee, but of the Special Task Force.  The relevant

portion is extracted hereunder:

“In compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court dated 24.4.2018 given in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union

of India & Ors. (WP (Civil) 4677/1985), the following Action

Plan was submitted in the hearing held on 15.5.2018 as intention

and commitment to check all ongoing/ future unauthorized

constructions, examination of specific complaints of

unauthorized constructions in the part and to take action thereon

and to weed out malpractices and corruption in the functioning

of developmental and municipal bodies under over the overall

supervision and coordination of the Special Task Force (STF)

constituted vide OM dated 25-4-2018.

1. Plan of Action to ensure that no further illegal

construction/ irregularity takes place in future

i) On the basis of territorial jurisdiction of the statutory

authorities/ local bodies like Delhi Development Authority, New

Delhi Municipal Council, South Delhi Municipal Corporation,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal

Corporation a Grid of officers has been prepared. This Grid

would include the names, telephone numbers and emails of the

concerned Executive Engineer / Equivalent Officer of respective

zones of the various statutory authorities/ local bodies, who shall

be held accountable for all future irregular and unauthorized

constructions/ violations of the MPD-2021, the DMC Act, 1957

and the Building Bye-Laws. The List of Officers included in the

in the Grid is annexed which shall be uploaded on web-site

being created separately for information of the general public

and will be regularly updated by the concerned statutory

authority from time to time, if any one gets transferred or

changed.”

32. It is apparent that the Monitoring Committee was authorized to take

care of the unauthorized colonies, and the Special Task Force was directed

to remove the encroachments from the public roads and public streets.  This

38

Court considered Report No.114 and thereby had passed certain orders.

Report   No.114   of   2018   is   related   to   unauthorized   constructions   and

commercial activities in 1797 unauthorized colonies.  Thus, the order of this

Court was confined to the unauthorized colonies and commercial activities

mentioned in the report as to encroachment on the public land.

33. The order dated 8.5.2018 is with respect to the groundwater level, not

pertaining to the matter in question.   The order dated 15.5.2018 is with

respect to the Central Government to hear and decide the objections as to

Master Plan and the Special Task Force constituted under the DDA Act 1957

was ordered to continue with their duties and responsibilities and action

plan submitted  by  the  Attorney  General was  to be implemented  by  the

Special Task Force, not by the Monitoring Committee.

34. In the order dated 24.5.2018, this Court issued the directions to the

statutory authorities to take appropriate action.  With respect to illegal and

unauthorized   structures,   no   direction   was   issued   to   the   Monitoring

Committee.  Following observations were made:

“14. We may mention that it has been recorded that Delhi is

being ravaged by unauthorized encroachments and illegal

constructions with impunity and none of the civic authorities

including the Delhi Development Authority was sincerely

carrying out its statutory duties. It is painful to require the

issuance of directions to statutory authorities to carry out their

mandatory functions in accordance with the law enacted by

Parliament. Unfortunately, the situation in Delhi warranted such

a direction due to the apathy of the civic authorities.”

35. This   Court   considered   Report   No.127   on   24.8.2018   related   to  the

encroachment   on   the   “public   land”   with   respect   to   the   construction   at

39

Burari,   Vishwas   Nagar   (EDMC),   Kishangarh,   South   Zone   (SDMC),   the

encroachment   of   DDA   land   at   Karkardooma   Metro   Station   (EDMC)   and

Bhatti Mines area of SDMC.

36. The order dated 7.9.2018 has also been referred to in which following

facts have been noted.:

“2. Functioning of the Monitoring Committee

It is stated that the Monitoring Committee is doing its best to

comply with the orders passed by this Court and to ensure that

there are no encroachments or unauthorized constructions or

misuse of property in Delhi, but the Monitoring Committee is

not getting adequate support from the executing agencies namely

MCD, NDMC, DDA, and the Police. Therefore, there are

existing constraints with the result that the Monitoring

Committee has not been able to fully comply with the orders

passed by this Court.

We request the Monitoring Committee to continue with its

onerous task and we expect the statutory bodies (mentioned

above) as well as the Police to render all necessary assistance to

the Monitoring Committee in carrying out its task. If there are

any specific complaints, these should be brought to the notice of

this Court as has been done in the past.

Needless to say that any complaint made by the Monitoring

Committee brought to the notice of this Court will be taken up

with all due seriousness.”

This Court has specifically noted in the aforesaid paragraph that the

Monitoring   Committee   is   doing   its   best   to   remove   the   encroachments/

unauthorized constructions or misuse of the property, but that is related to

the encroachments on the public land and unauthorized colonies, and at no

point of time this Court has authorized the Monitoring Committee to take

action concerning residential premises which were standing on the private

land and were not being misused.  The aforesaid observations are not with

respect to the Committee's authorization but have to be read in the context

of the purpose for which the Monitoring Committee had been appointed.

40

The power of the Monitoring Committee could not be said to be widened by

the aforesaid observations made in the order. This Court specifically dealt

with in several orders the questions relating to power and the purpose for

which the Monitoring Committee had been appointed. 

37. The   learned   Amicus   invited   the   attention   to   the   order   dated

12.10.2018,   in   which   this   Court   simply   observed   that   the   Monitoring

Committee should carry out its activities and responsibilities.  The order is

quoted hereunder:

“The office report indicates that No Objection Certificate

from Shri Ajay Kumar Singh has not yet been obtained. The

alleged contemnor should file the No Objection Certificate in the

Registry.

The additional affidavit be filed in this regard before the next

date of hearing.

List the matter on 30th October, 2018.

It is made clear that the pendency of these proceedings should

not deter the Monitoring Committee or any other authority from

carrying out its activities and responsibilities.

The alleged contemnor should remain present in Court on the

next date of hearing.”

(emphasis supplied)

38. In the order dated 5.12.2018, the court pointed out with respect to the

large number of complaints received by the Special Task Force and removal

of encroachments from the public land, thus: 

“1. Mr. Tarun Kapoor, the Vice Chairman of the DDA and the

Chairman of the Special Task Force (STF) is present in the Court

today.

The learned ASG, on taking instructions from him, says that

while it is correct that regular reports have not been filed in terms of

the orders passed by this Court, fortnightly report will henceforth be

filed without fail by the STF.

It is further stated that the STF has received a very large

number of complaints exceeding 7000 and it has become quite

difficult to deal with all these complaints. So far about 3,400

complaints have been dealt with. 

41

In view of the large number of complaints, efforts are being

made to recruit additional staff. It is stated by Mr. Kapoor that

additional staff will be recruited within 15 days or so or in any case

before 31.12.2018.

We expect the STF to expeditiously deal with all these

complaints and take appropriate action wherever necessary. This may

be done in a time bound manner.

We may note that the fact that the STF has received more than

7000 complaints indicates the magnitude of the problem of

encroachments and unauthorized construction in Delhi.

2. A consolidated report of the actions taken on the recommendations

of the Special Task Force has been shown to us today.

On perusal of the report, we find that the total area cleared

from encroachment by the STF under permanent structures is as high

as 10,71,838 sq mts. The area under temporary structures that has

been cleared from encroachment is 16,99,858 sq mts. In addition,

about 3,202 sq mts of roads / streets / footpaths have been cleared on

both sides. This confirms the severe problems being faced by Delhi

due to unauthorized construction and encroachments and the

magnitude of the problem.

3. In view of the huge amount of land that has been retrieved by

the Municipal Corporations under the directions of the STF, it is

necessary to preserve and protect the lands so that there is no

encroachment upon it once again.

Since the Commissioners of the Municipal Corporations are

part of the STF, we would require the STF to look into the matter

with due seriousness and protect and preserve the land that has been

taken possession/retrieved from the unauthorized encroachments.

Needless to say, this also includes the roads/streets/footpaths that

have been cleared by the STF with the assistance of the Municipal

Corporations.”

39. Learned   Amicus   relied   upon   order   dated   14.1.2019.   The   relevant

portion is extracted hereunder:

“….The Monitoring Committee, along with the Deputy

Commissioner, Nazafgarh Zone, SDMC, inspected the area

behind Sector 7 Dwarka Sub-city on 30.10.2018 and noticed

major unauthorised constructions in the amalgamated plots

wherein huge showrooms, restaurants, Gyms etc. were found to

be in operation. The Deputy Commissioner, Nazafgarh Zone,

SDMC, were immediately directed to issue show cause notice to

all the violators in respect of unauthorised constructions and

misuse.

Let the SDMC explain as to why they have not taken any

42

action under the provisions of DMC Act for unauthorised

constructions and as to why the responsibility of taking action

has to be fastened only to Revenue Department, District

Magistrate and SDM. The needful be done within three weeks

from today.

Let the Revenue Department also explain its stand on the

action taken on the unauthorised constructions pursuant to the

observations made by the Committee and the directions issued in

respect of the plots vested in Sector 7 at Dwarka Sub-city. ….”

It is apparent that in the order dated 14.1.2019, this Court has noted

that   construction   of   showrooms,   restaurants,   gyms   that   was   for   the

“commercial purpose” and notice was issued in respect of “unauthorized

constructions and misuse of the residential area”. 

40. Learned Amicus referred to the order dated 31.7.2001 passed in Writ

Petition (C) No.27 of 1994.  The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“52. ….The perusal of the affidavits further shows that the

parties concerned have not even touched the tip of the iceberg as

far as demolition of unauthorised constructions is concerned.

The number of unauthorised constructions which are said to have

been demolished are a small fraction of what is required to be

done. It is quote evident that there is now no fear of the law

catching up at least with those persons who do not believe in

adhering to following the rules and regulations laid down with

respect to construction of property. Unauthorised encroachment

and illegal construction even as per the affidavits are increasing.

It is dangerous trend if the people do not have either respect for

or fear of law primarily due to non-enforcement of the law. It is

something which causes us some concern and it would be

appropriate if serious thought is given to this aspect at the higher

quarters…….

53. …. On one hand, various laws are enacted, master

plans are prepared by expert planners, provision is made in the

plans also to tackle the problems of existing unauthorised

constructions and misusers and on the other hand, such illegal

activities go on unabated openly under the gaze of everyone,

without having any respect and regard for law and other

citizens…..

61. ……Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of

43

the High Court and this Court, the enforcement of the laws and

the implementation of the orders are utterly lacking. If the law

are not enforced and the orders of the courts to enforce and

implement the laws are ignored, the result can only be total

lawlessness. It is, therefore, necessary to also identify and take

appropriate action against officers responsible for this state of

affairs. Such blatant misuse of properties at large scale cannot

take place without connivance of the concerned officers. It is

also a source of corruption…. ”

41. In the order reported in (2004) 6 SCC 588 in this case, this Court

considered the question of regularization of illegal industrial activities in the

context of a violation of Master Plan and industrial activities in residential

non­conforming areas of Delhi.  Requisite directions were issued for closure

or relocation of industrial units non­confirming with the ecological balance

considering   the   right   of   a   hygienic,   clean   and   safe   environment.     The

decision is not  relevant  with respect to the power and authority of the

Monitoring Committee to act.

42. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier this Court in the same

matter passed an order reported in (2013) 16 SCC 336 whereby sent all the

matters from Supreme Court to the High Court.  Since in the High Court, the

progress was slow, later on, vide order dated 15.12.2017, this Court called

all the matters back to this Court.

43. No doubt about it that matter of encroachment is a matter of concern,

but the Monitoring Committee can act within the four corners of powers

conferred upon it and purpose for which the court appointed the Monitoring

Committee. It cannot exceed its powers and take any action beyond its

authorization by the court.

44

44. We have gone through the various reports referred to by the learned

Amicus Curiae and other learned counsel concerning sealing.  They reflect

the following position:

REPORT NO.1

45. Report No.1 dated 13.4.2006 submitted by the Monitoring Committee,

is captioned under Para 1, which is extracted hereunder:

 “PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE MONITORING

COMMITTEE FOR SEALING OF COMMERCIAL

ESTABLISHMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 24th

March 2006 had appointed a Monitoring Committee

comprising of Sh.K.J. Rao, Former Advisor to Election

Commission, Sh. Bhure Lal, Chairman, E.P.C.A. and Maj.

General (Retd.) Som Jhingon, Kirti Chakra, VSM to monitor

the sealing of commercial establishments in residential

premises in Delhi. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi

(MCD) had informed the members of their appointment as

Members of the Monitoring Committee on 28th/30th March,

2006. Sh. Bhure Lal & Sh. K.J. Rao took charge of office on

29th March 2006 and had a meeting with the officers of the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Senior Advocates of

MCD.”

REPORT NO.2

46. In   Report   No.2   dated   6.5.2006   submitted   by   the   Monitoring

Committee, is captioned as under:

 “REPORT NO.2 OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE

FOR SEALING OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS

 IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES”

The Report is with respect to the sealing of commercial establishments

in residential premises.   Certain suggestions were made with respect to

roads measuring 80 ft. wide and above, mixed land use and payment of

45

conversion charges, zonal plans, parking, vacant commercial units built by

Delhi Development Authority, and Banquet halls.  Following is the Executive

Summary of the Report:

 “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

20. Taking into consideration the above factual position,

the Monitoring Committee recommends the Hon’ble Supreme

Court kindly to consider to direct:

a. The MCD to recover from the beneficiaries, where mixed

land use has been allowed, the conversion and parking

charges together with interest thereon from the date of the

notification allowing mixed land use of the premises

besides revising the conversion charged fixed by the MCD

in 1992.

b. The MCD to ensure that Front Setbacks are surrendered by

the beneficiaries of mixed land use streets, as laid down in

Clause 8(4) of the Master Plan 2001.

c. The MCD to complete the sealing operations in respect of

identified roads having width of 80 ft & above and to take

up thereafter the sealing operations in respect of roads

having width of 60 ft. & above after giving a Public Notice,

as has been done in the case of roads of 80 ft width and

above.

d. The Ministry of Urban Development – Govt. of India to

approve and notify the draft Zonal Plans already prepared

and pending with the DDA in respect of the remaining nine

zones wherein mixed land use roads have already been

identified for which not more than 15 days time is required.

Simultaneously the work regarding the survey and

preparation of Draft Zonal Plans in accordance with the

Master Plan 221 may continue.

e. The Ministry of Urban Development – Govt. of India to

modify its Notification dated 28th March 2006 based on the

suggestions given by the Committee in paras 17, 18 & 19

above.

f. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and all the local bodies to ensure

the implementation of the parking policy.”

REPORT NO.3

47. Report   No.3   dated   23.5.2006   is   again  for   sealing   the  “commercial

46

establishments   in   the   residential   premises”.     It   has   the   reference   with

respect to the commercial establishments carrying out commercial activities

at   their   premises.     It   also   has   a   reference   to   the   Delhi   Laws   (Special

Provisions) Act, 2006.  Some explanations are also in the report concerning

the de­sealing of commercial establishments.

REPORT NO.4

48. Report No.4 dated 24.5.2006 is again CAPTION as Report No.1.  The

report is concerning the “commercial establishments” as mentioned in Para

2   such   as   automobile   showrooms,   Automobile   workshops,   Branded

showrooms,   call   centers,   coaching   institutes,   business   offices,   building

materials, go­downs, tent houses, guest houses, jewellery shops, restaurants

and iron and steel shops. The report has a mention of “small shops”, which

deals with private activities in “residential areas” such as Vegetable/ fruits/

flowers, bakery items, kirana, stationery, cybercafé, barber shop, chemist

shops, etc. The report further states about “prohibited commercial activities

in residential areas," such as banquet halls, storage, go­downs, junk shops,

liquor shops, printing, dyeing, and varnishing, etc.  

49. Bistro Village is situated at Hauz Khas. In para 17, it is mentioned

that   it   is   an   urban   village   where   permitted   land   use   for   the   area   is

residential, and no commercial activity within the village can be permitted. It

was observed that a major part of the village is full of commercial activities,

even though no commercial activity was permitted in Hauz Khaz village,

which is a residential area.  The report also mentions commercial activities

in unauthorized colonies like Madhu Vihar, where area earmarked for a

47

Community   Centre,   Health   Centre,   and   other   community   facilities   has

encroached. The report was relating to “commercial use in the residential

premises”.  It   was  also  mentioned  that  there  is  an encroachment   of  the

monument on public land.

REPORT NO.5

50. Report No.5 dated 20.9.2006 CAPTION as Report No.1, following facts

have been mentioned:

 “9. Commercial Activity in Unauthorised Colonies on

Encroached Public Land – Madhu Vihar: In Its Report No. 4,

the Monitoring Committee reported to the Hon’ble Supreme

Court regarding commercial establishments on encroached

public land in many unauthorized colonies pending

regularization. Examples of Madhu Vihar and New Ashok Nagar

were given in the said Report. The photographs enclosed as

Annexure ‘E' with the said Report clearly show the extent of

commercial activities on the encroached public land even on the

roads of 80’ and above in Madhu Vihar. The Monitoring

Committee visited Madhu Vihar on 19th September 2006 and

noticed that in the entire colony commercial activities have

almost been stopped and hectic activities going on for

conversion of those places as residential houses. The entire

commercial area has again been photographed. The photographs

now taken on 19th September 2006 are enclosed. Development

Notification, dated 7th September, 2006, the Government of NCT

of Delhi had notified such streets/stretches (Number not Indicated) by way of a Notification No.149, dated 15th September,

2006. It had further been stated that the Government of India and

the Government of NCT of Delhi have enacted the notifications

under the powers conferred to them under the DDA Act and that

they are valid and constitutional. The Commissioner MCD concluded that “what amounted to mis-user prior to the above Notifications cannot be termed as mis-user at the present point of

time to the extent provided for in the Notifications. The Hon'ble

Supreme court of India has directed the MCD to take sealing action ln case of mis-user. Thus, to the extent mis-user continues

after the above Notifications, the same will be sealed as per the

directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. A copy of the Note of

the Commissioner, MCD is enclosed herewith and marked as

Annexure ‘C'. 

48

6. As the Notification No.149, dated 15th September, 2006 referred to in the Note of the Commissioner, MCD had not been

received by the Monitoring Committee till 11 A.M. on 18th September, 2006, a letter was sent to the MCD for a copy of the

same. The Commissioner MCD informed the Monitoring Committee to say that they had received only the first eight pages of

the Notification and that the full text of the Notification would

be available only by the evening of 18th September, 2006. A copy

of the Notification, dated 15th September, 2006, has finally been

received by the Monitoring Committee at 6 P.M. on 19th September, 2006.

7. The Monitoring Committee would submit to the Hon’ble

Supreme Court that the rationale and the stand taken by the

MCD on sealing operations Vide its Note, dated 16th September,

2006 is different from the stand earlier taken by it on the 15th

September, 2006, in the meeting of the Monitoring Committee

with the Commissioner and other officers of the MCD, which is

somewhat surprising. The Monitoring Committee further submits

that as per the sealing programmes received from the MCD, the

sealing operations are being done by the MCD as per the stand

taken by it in its Note, dated 16th September, 2006. Accordingly,

sealing operations are being done in areas/roads which herewith

and collectively marked as Annexure ‘D’. A comparison of

these two sets of photographs show the extent of change of face

of the commercial area. The Monitoring Committee brings it to

the notice of the Hon'ble Court that any building having commercial activity on any encroachment of 'public property is not

eligible for regularization. Para 1.1 (b) of the Revised Guidelines

for regularization of unauthorized colonies as framed by the

Govt. of NCT Delhi provides that colonies /parts of 'colonies

which pose hindrances in the provision of infrastructure facilities

would not be considered for regularization. As already mentioned in its Report No. 4 the Monitoring Committee had

brought to the kind notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that as

per the zonal plan entire encroached area is meant for development as Community Center, Medical Center and Public Utility

facilities. Further para 1.1(d) of the said guidelines provides that

no regularization will be done in respect of the buildings used for

commercial purposes except for petty shops upto 50 sqm. DDA

has not taken cognizance of these violations on encroached public land. In view of the foregoing, the Monitoring committee reiterates its recommendations to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to direct the DDA to take immediate action, in a phased manner, to

demolish all such buildings having commercial activities on encroached public land in all colonies in Delhi.”

49

REPORT NO.6

51. In Report No.6 dated 22.9.2006 by the Monitoring Committee, the

following facts have been mentioned:

“3. The Monitoring Committee, in addition, would like to bring

it to the kind notice of the Hon’ble Court that despite clear

instructions from the Monitoring Committee to carry out the

sealings colony-wise instead of road-to-road basis, in respect of

prohibited activities in residential areas, the MCD had issued

contrary orders to the Sealing Teams of various zones to carry

out the sealings in parts in various colonies in the zone without

completing the work in a particular colony at a time. The

reasons and the rationale for this changed action not in

consonance with the directions of the Monitoring Committee are

not known.”

REPORT NO.7

52. In Report No.7 dated 27.9.2006 the  CAPTION  remains the same as

Report No.1, the following facts have been mentioned:

 “1. The Monitoring Committee has, in its Report No.4

recommended the perception of a small shop, in which 19

commercial activities have been mentioned. The Monitoring

Committee has inadvertently omitted the following activities

which may kindly be considered for inclusion in the said list:-

a. Cable TV/ DTH operations;

b. Hosiery/ Readymade Garments/ Cloth Shops;

c. ATM;

1.1 The Monitoring Committee further recommends that

the Hon’ble Court may kindly consider to fix a date before

which the owners of the small shops should get themselves

registered after depositing the conversion charges and getting the

Building Plans revised.

2. Similarly, the Hon’ble Court may kindly consider to fix a date

before which owners of the shops under mixed land use/

commercial use get themselves registered after depositing the

conversion charges and getting the Building Plans revised.”

REPORT NO.8

53. In Report No.8 dated 17.10.2006, the ‘CAPTION’ remains the same as

50

Report No.1.   The report states meeting with the Commissioner of Police,

Delhi, and sealing programme in unauthorized colonies.

REPORT NO.16

54. Report No.16 dated 23.11.2006 is regarding the sealing of “CTC Plaza”

at Kilokhri, Ring Road.   It is a “branded showroom” of diamond jewellery,

sarees, costumes, readymade garments, etc. It has been used for commercial

activity.

REPORT NO.31

55. In Report No.31 dated 2.3.2007 ‘CAPTION’ is the same as Report No.1,

the following facts have been mentioned by the Monitoring Committee:

“2. The Monitoring Committee brings it to the kind notice of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court that following establishments are not

covered by the Master Plan 2021:

(a) Commercial activities on encroached public land;

(b) Commercial activities on floors other than ground floor in

notified Mixed Land Use Roads/ Pedestrian Roads;

(c) Prohibited commercial activities in residential and Mixed

land use areas mentioned in para 15.6.2 of Master Plan Delhi2021;

(d) Commercial activities in basements in residential areas;

(e) Commercial establishments on roads other than the 2183

roads notified as Mixed Land Use or Commercial or Pedestrian

roads by Notifications dated 7th September and 15th September

2006 for which no protection is extended (however 90 days time

has been provided in the Master Plan-2021 for survey and to

notify additional roads further to 2183 roads);

(f) Specific Commercial establishments / properties mentioned in

the judgment dated 16th February 2006 of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court (While disposing of the Civil Appeals, Interlocutory

Applications (other than IA 22) and Special Leave Petitions in

the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in its Judgement

dated 16th February, 2006, directed that in case misuser is not

stopped in the premises involved in the Civil Appeals and

Special Leave Petitions, subject to what had been stated in the

Judgement, the MCD would take immediate steps to seal those

premises soon after expiry of 30 days). The MCD has been

requested to furnish a list of such properties which have to be

51

sealed in terms of this order). Specific properties mentioned in

the Report No.4 dated 14th September 2006 of the Monitoring

Committee (commercial establishments on encroached public

land meant for public utility services), as per directions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 29th September 2006.”

REPORT NO.34

56. Report   No.34   dated   9.4.2017   ‘CAPTION’   is   as   Report   No.1.     Nonavailability of the police force was required to carry out sealing operation in

the Report.

REPORT NO.38

57. In Report No.38 dated 21.7.2007, the ‘CAPTION’  is as Report No.1.

The report is with respect to the “Mixed­Use Regulations” and “Special Area

Regulations” as per the MPD­2021.   Regulation No.16.2 of the MPD­2021

was referred to in the report.  It was also pointed out that there should be

“one shop on one plot in the residential areas”.  The detail of the registration

was given for small shops, professionals, commercial and other activities in

the residential areas. Concerning conversion charges for mixed land use,

certain suggestions were made. The report also contains the detail of the

encroachment made on the public land.  The report also contains in detail

the   provisions   of   the   MPD­2021   and   regarding   “regularization   of

unauthorized   colonies”   on   “encroached   public   land”   of   “Gram   Sabha”,

acquired land, “DDA land”, “MCD land”, “Forest land”, etc. It was pointed

out that total encroachments on public land is “26,830 Bigha 17 Biswas”.

“Unauthorized colonies which have come up on the public land” were having

“commercial activities” also.

REPORT NO.43

52

58. Report No.43 dated 5.10.2007 ‘CAPTION’  is the same as in Report

No.1.   It is apparent from the entire Report No.43 that it was concerning

payment   of   conversion   charges   for   small   shops,   “mixed   use”   and

“commercial activities” registered. The report further states regarding godowns in rural areas and “encroachment” of Raj Vidya Kender upon the

“public land”.  

REPORT NO.46

59. Report No.46 dated 12.11.2007 was filed concerning IAs regarding

sealing  of   premises   of   the   ICICI  ‘Bank’   Limited   at   New   Friends   Colony,

various   “business   schools   and   institutions,   physiotherapy   and   wellness

centers/hotels at the Kailash Colony” area where “residential premises have

been used for the commercial activities”.

REPORT NO.47

60. Report No.47 dated 5.12.2007 was submitted concerning various IAs

filed in this Court with respect to sealed premises of Small Shops Traders

Welfare   Association.     The   Monitoring   Committee   observed   concerning

Vidhata Estates Private Limited that it was running “commercial activities in

building." The Monitoring Committee observed as under:

“In view of the foregoing, the Monitoring Committee submits

that the applicant, who is running commercial activities in a

building on a part of the plot abutting a non-notified road, with

unauthorized constructions and having no legal access to the

notified road, is not entitled to any relief in the matter.”

       (emphasis supplied)

61. Some   hotels,   guest   houses,   other   commercial   premises,   business

schools,   etc.   were   also   mentioned.   “None   of   the   items”   is   for   “purely

residential premises”.  The Monitoring Committee further observed:

53

“The MCD has already been informed by the Monitoring

Committee that industrial units in residential areas do not fall

under its purview and the same may be sealed or de-sealed as per

the directions of the Monitoring Committee constituted by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court for the purpose.”

REPORT NO.75

62. Report No.75 dated 1.1.2020 is concerning the “commercial activities”

and unauthorized construction by “Reebok Showroom”, “Hotel” West End

Inn, Central Plaza, NH 8, and “Rangapuri” Extension.

63. Concerning ensuring the implementation of the Master Plan of Delhi,

2021 (MPD­2021), in its true spirit, all “commercial activities in residential

premises” are identified and removed. Following facets have been mentioned

by the Monitoring Committee in its Report:

“2. SPECIAL SUBMISSION OF THE MONITORING

COMMITTEE

The Monitoring Committee submits that the Committee has

been appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to ensure

implementation of its orders in the matter after taking into

consideration large scale commercialization of residential

premises. By various orders, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid

down the guidelines and also ensured that the Government

brought out the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021. The Monitoring

Committee has tried to ensure the implementation of MPD-2021

in its true spirit by ensuring that all commercial activities in

residential premises are identified and removed. Some important

facets are:

1. Admissibility of only one small shop on a plot in residential

premises

2. Re-survey of classified roads. Many roads which do not

qualify to be notified either as MLU/ Commercial Road even

as per the MCD survey, have not been de-notified despite the

assurance given by the MCED to the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and several reminders by the Monitoring Committee. In one

case a single property in A & B Colony (A-4 Sarvodaya

Enclave) has been clubbed with E&F Colony and notified as

commercial road in blatant violation of the MPD-2021, by an

amendment to the Notification dated 15th Sept 2006).

54

3. Commercialization in Rural & Urban Villages.

4. Encroachment of public land by the traders.

5. Non sealing of commercial activities in non-permissible

premises like D-1, D-1A & D-18, Green Park Min Market,

Jahaz Mahal (Mehrauli) Shiva Market in a DDA Pak in

Rohini Zone etc.

6. Parking & free circulation on commercial roads.

7. Breaking of seals in more than 70 reported cases in just two

Zones of MCD, in which action has not been initiated for

contempt of court proceedings.”

REPORT NO.85

64. In Report No.85 dated 4.4.2011, ‘CAPTION’ is the same as in Report

No.1. A complaint was made by the Monitoring Committee as to the order of

the Lt. Governor of Delhi for “de­sealing” some of the establishments under

“commercial/ mixed land use” in violation of orders of this Court. The details

of “construction on public land” by Dr. Lal Path Labs, 54, Hanuman Road,

and encroachment on public land, unauthorized construction, and misuse of

“shops/flats in Khan Market” area was concerned.

REPORT NO.103

65. In Report No.103 dated 12.4.2016, it was pointed out that pursuant to

remitting the cases by this Court to the Delhi High Court, various difficulties

in the implementation of the order were pointed out.  The details were given

with   respect   to   the   hearing   of   the   cases   by   the   Delhi   High   Court   and

progress on disposal of appeals before the Tribunals. The details of desealing   of   properties   in   the   unauthorized   colony,   village   &   abadi   area

(including urban villages constructed on public land) were given. The details

were given about the refusal of the Standing Committee of the erstwhile

MCD to de­notify 140 Roads in Shahdara North, Rohini, Central, South, and

West   Zones   resurveyed.   Violations   of   the   orders   dated   3.1.2012   and

55

30.4.2013 by various commercial establishments were pointed out and other

facts regarding interference of Lt. Governor of Delhi in the sealing matter of

Dr.   Lal   Path   Labs   Pvt.   Ltd.   etc.     and   unauthorized   construction   on

Government and public land were given thus:

“The Monitoring Committee would submit to the Hon’ble Court

that the Municipal Authorities, NDMC and DDA are lax in the

performance of their duty with respect to unauthorised

construction and encroachment on public/ govt. land. The public

at large is violating the laid down orders i.e. Building Bye Laws

and Master Plan etc. The fear factor with respect to the punitive

action by the Authorities is totally missing from the public mind

thereby creating a chaotic situation on the ground in whole of

Delhi. The officers concerned are not performing there assigned

duties. The DDA has not been able to safe guard/ protect its land

and there is rampant encroachment. The DDA must as a policy

make a boundary wall to protect the land from any type of

encroachment and also carry out regular inspection of their land

holdings.”

REPORT NO.104

66. Report No.104 dated 30.10.2017 deals with the “conversion charges”

regarding   “mixed   use   land”,   de­notification   of   140   roads,   “unauthorized

construction” on “public and Government land” and “unauthorized colonies

were being constructed by way of encroachments in the Government land”.

The Report further states regarding violations by commercial establishments

like Delhi Cloth Mills and other institutions where “commercial shops” were

built and regarding Ambassador “Hotel” etc.

REPORT NO.106

67. In   Report   No.106   dated   10.1.2018   submitted   by   the   Monitoring

Committee, public land use was acquired where unauthorized structures

were raised. The Monitoring Committee has mentioned the following facts:

“The Monitoring Committee has finalized its plan to carry out

56

the assigned task of sealing the unauthorized structures, eradicate

misuse and remove encroachment on DDA/ Government land

and making the public aware of the seriousness of their crime for

any illegal act in this process. Retrieval of DDA land and Forest

land is the priority task set by the Monitoring Committee.”

REPORT NO.111

68. In Report No.111 dated 7.2.2018 concerning E­5A, Hauz Khaz Market,

New   Delhi,   it   was   submitted   that   the   same   falls   under   Shops­cumResidential use, not as a Local Shopping Centre. The Report was regarding

“use   of   basement   for   professional   activities   in   residential   premises”.   It

further dealt with the “encroachments on the public land” and submits that

the “commercial activities are not permitted in the converted shops cum

residence”.

REPORT NO.112

69. Report   No.112   dated   9.2.2018   of   the   Monitoring   Committee   is

concerning large scale “commercial activities in the residential premises” at

Shahdara, South Zone.

REPORT NO.114

70. Report   No.114   dated   3.4.2018   is   concerning   the   construction   of

unauthorized colonies on Gram Sabha land, acquired land, DDA land, and

MCD land.  It was submitted that no regularization could be done in respect

of residential premises used for non­residential purposes.

REPORT NO.118

71. Report   No.118   dated   7.5.2018   concerns   the   “Khan   Market”   where

“verandahs   were   encroached   and   amalgamated   in   the   shops”   causing

hardship to the visitors in the market.  The report further states regarding

57

encroachment of DDA land at Sanjay Market, Mangolpur Kalan in Rohini

Zone and misuse of premises for commercial activities

REPORT NO.119

72. Report No.119 dated 24.5.2018 is regarding the slow progress of the

“sealing operations” in Lajpat Nagar­IV and Amar Colony­Refugee Colony,

where large scale “encroachments” were made by owners/ occupants on the

“Government land”.

REPORT NO.120

73. Report No.120 dated 11.6.2018, again referred to this Court’s order

dated 29.9.2006 regarding “conversion of residential user into commercial”

user except with the leave of this Court.

It   was   observed   that   the   Government's   obligation   was   to   ensure

compliance of the order of this Court, and the Special Task Force and the

Monitoring   Committee   were   directed   to   continue   with   its   duties   and

responsibilities.

REPORT NO.121

74. Report No.121 dated 13.6.2018 was concerning “non­cooperation” of

the local bodies with the Sealing Officer, where after inspection, it was found

that certain “rooftops” were being used as “pubs” and “dance floors” after

clubbing the plots illegally.

REPORT NO.124

75. In Report No.124 dated 4.7.2018 again, a complaint was made relating

to “non­cooperation” of authorities in the sealing process as the Master Plan

58

(MPD­2021) was under consideration.

REPORT NO.125

76. Report No.125 dated 31.7.2018 is concerning the constitution of the

Special Task Force.  It was pointed out that there was “non­cooperation” by

the “Special Task Force”. Details were mentioned about sealing action at

Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, where the “tenements” built by the Government

for residential purposes only were allotted to refugees in various colonies in

Delhi on a lease basis. Most of them were used for “commercial activities by

raising unauthorized construction” on the Government and common land.

Details about the roads were also given.

REPORT NO.127

77. Report   No.127   dated   20.8.2018   was   again   concerning   illegal/

unauthorized construction.  With respect to “Burari Area” (North MCD) the

report was submitted that the area was vandalized and huge unauthorized

construction has come up. Concerning “Vishwas Nagar” (EDMC), report was

relating to “residential premises being used as Go­downs” and storing places

for “prohibited industries,".  In Kishangarh area at South Zone, large scale

unauthorized   construction   was   reported   on   DDA   land   by   way   of

encroachment.  Similarly, the encroachment on DDA land at Karkardooma

Metro   Station   was   pointed   out.     At   Bhatti   Mines   area   of   SDMC,

“encroachment of Revenue/Forest land” was pointed out.

REPORT NO.128

78. In Report No.128 dated 5.9.2018 suggestions were made regarding

59

permanent   de­sealing   norms.     Dubious   deviations   regarding   misuse   of

unauthorized constructions were pointed out.  “Unauthorized constructions”

were being raised in unauthorized colonies on the “public land”. Details were

given about “encroachment on the DDA land”.

REPORT NO.129

79. In   Report   No.129   dated   18.9.2018   report   was   furnished   regarding

illegal   dairy   running   at   Gokulpur,   which   was   sealed   but   the   seal   was

tampered.

REPORT NO.131

80. Report No.131 dated 8.10.2018 is related to the “contempt notice”

issued by this Court to one of the Members of Parliament.

REPORT NO.134

81. Report No.134 was submitted concerning the “Motels/ Farm Houses”

who have constructed “pandals, shamianas, sheds," etc. in their plots. Order

dated   12.10.2018   of   this   Court   was   also   stated   which   is   extracted

hereunder:

“…….As an interim measure, we direct that the basement of the

premises in question shall remain sealed until further orders.

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the applicant says that no pandal will be constructed on the

premises in question. In view of this undertaking, the seal on the

premises may be opened. The Monitoring Committee as well as

the South Delhi Municipal Corporation should give their report

within ten days.

The applicant may respond to these reports within four days

thereafter.”

82. Certain violations of MPD­2021 were also pointed out to be complied

with by the concerned authorities.

REPORT NO.144

60

83. Report No.144 dated 11.12.2018 is in respect of the “cases pending”

before the “High Court of Delhi” regarding property situated at 22A, Janpath.

The   report   was   submitted   regarding   “change   of   the   land”   used   for

“residential purposes as commercial” and the residential premises were used

to   run   a   chemist   shop.     Similarly,   other   cases   were   also   pointed   out.

Regarding the 20 Point Programme (TPP) certain “allotments” of plots were

made   for   the   “residential   purpose”   but   they   were   being   used   for   the

“commercial activities”.  Showrooms, Restaurants, Gyms, etc. were reported

to be in operation on those plots. The report further states with respect to

Singla Sweets (commercial) at Madhu Vihar and Vanasthali Public School,

which were constructed on public and acquired land.

84. The order dated 7.5.2019 was pointed out time and again by the

learned   counsel   for   the   parties.     On   7.5.219   this   Court   directed   the

Monitoring Committee as under:

“Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel and Amicus

Curiae, and the learned senior counsel appearing on both the

sides.

I.A.No. 61593/2019 and 61594/2019

A question has been raised whether the Committee has the

jurisdiction to decide about the premises which have been

erected for residential purposes only and are not being used for

commercial purposes and the buildings have not been erected

and used for industrial purposes. Question is also raised whether

the Committee has been empowered to take care of unauthorised

construction, when they are purely for residential purpose.

We request the Committee to send its opinion whether in

the past, it has exercised its power and jurisdiction where the

premises are only constructed and are used as residential one and

there is an allegation of raising unauthorised construction or

some deviation has been made in the existing structure. We

61

request the Committee to furnish its considered opinion in this

regard before this Court.

*** *** ***

It was also submitted that as per the provisions contained

in Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Delhi

Development Act, 1957, notification was issued by the DDA on

22.03.2016. Chapter 1 contains the provision of regularisation.

Paragraph 2.27 is extracted hereunder :-

“2.27 Any building or part thereof constructed

unauthorisedly with or without obtaining the

Sanction/Completion Certificate communicated

thereof by a written intimation/undertaking can be

regularised, if the same is within the ambit of BBL

and MPD provisions by paying requisite fees and

charges as per Annexure IV.”

It was also submitted that the construction is in

accordance with the Master Plan and is in low density residential

area. Whether it is a case of deviation or wholly unauthorised

construction in view of the report of measurement, may also be

gone into by the Committee and thereafter, the matter may be

decided in an objective manner, whether it can be compounded

or not in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. Let the

Committee decide the matter afresh within 15 days of the receipt

of the report after hearing the concerned parties. Factual position

from SDM may also be ascertained as he has written letter dated

03.04.2019.

As prayed for by Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned

counsel, it is open to the applicants to maintain the horticulture

and watering of the plants etc.

For taking out the essential items etc., it is open to the

applicant to apply to the Committee.”

This Court directed the Monitoring Committee to give its considered

opinion specifically as to whether at any point in time in the past, it sealed

any residential premises, which were not misused for commercial purposes.

The Monitoring Committee kept silent on this aspect and did not cite even a

single such instance.  Four orders referred to by the Monitoring Committee

neither deal with the question of the power of the Monitoring Committee, nor

they are relevant to the point in question.  

62

85. It is apparent from the various orders passed by this Court from time

to time and from the various reports of the Monitoring Committee that it was

never   authorized   by   this   Court   to   take   action   against   the   residential

premises   that   were   not   being   used   for   commercial   purposes.     It   was

appointed   only   to   check   the   misuser   of   the   residential   properties   for

commercial purposes.   After that, this Court directed that the Monitoring

Committee should also look into the matter of “encroachment on the public

land” and “unauthorized colonies” that have come up on the public land and

were wholly unauthorized without sanction.  At no point in time, this Court

had empowered the Monitoring Committee to act vis­à­vis to the purely

residential premises.

86. The power of sealing of property carries civil consequences. A person

can be deprived of the property by following a procedure in accordance with

law.  The Monitoring Committee is not authorized to take action concerning

the residential premises situated on the private land. If there is unauthorized

construction or in case of deviation, the requisite provisions are under the

DMC Act, such as sections 343, 345, 347(A), 347(B).   The mode of action

and adjudication under the Act is provided including appellate provisions

and that of the Tribunal.   It would not be appropriate to the Monitoring

Committee to usurp statutory powers and act beyond authority conferred

upon it by the Court.  The Monitoring Committee could not have sealed the

residential premises, which were not misused for the commercial purpose as

done vide Report No.149, nor it could have directed the demolition of those

residential properties.  

63

87. Article 300A of the Constitution provides that nobody can be deprived

of the property and right of residence otherwise in the manner prescribed by

law.  When the statute prescribes a mode, the property's deprivation cannot

be done in other modes since this Court did not authorize the Committee to

take action in the matter.   An action could have been taken in no other

manner except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law as laid

down in the decisions referred to at the Bar thus:

(a)  State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77, wherein this

Court observed:

“59. ….In absence of any substantive provisions contained in

a parliamentary or legislative act, he cannot be refrained from

dealing with his property in any manner he likes. Such statutory

interdict would be opposed to one’s right of property as

envisaged under Article 300-A of the Constitution.”

(b) K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1 in which

it was opined:

“168. Article 300-A proclaims that no person can be deprived

of his property save by authority of law, meaning thereby that a

person cannot be deprived of his property merely by an

executive fiat, without any specific legal authority or without the

support of law made by a competent legislature. The expression

“property” in Article 300-A confined not to land alone, it

includes intangibles like copyrights and other intellectual

property and embraces every possible interest recognised by law.

169. This Court in State of W.B. v. Vishnunarayan and

Associates (P) Ltd.6

, while examining the provisions of the West

Bengal Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act,

1980, held in the context of Article 300-A that the State or

executive officers cannot interfere with the right of others unless

they can point out the specific provisions of law which

authorises their rights.”

(emphasis supplied)

6

(2002) 4 SCC 134

64

(c) In T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member, (2006) 8 SCC 502, the

Court observed:

“13. Town Planning legislations are regulatory in nature. The

right to property of a person would include a right to construct a

building. Such a right, however, can be restricted by reason of a

legislation. In terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and

Country Planning Act, a comprehensive development plan was

prepared. It indisputably is still in force. Whether the

amendments to the said comprehensive development plan as

proposed by the Authority would ultimately be accepted by the

State or not is uncertain. It is yet to apply its mind. Amendments

to a development plan must conform to the provisions of the Act.

As noticed hereinbefore, the State has called for objection from

the citizens. Ecological balance no doubt is required to be

maintained and the courts while interpreting a statute should

bestow serious consideration in this behalf, but ecological

aspects, it is trite, are ordinarily a part of the town planning

legislation. If in the legislation itself or in the statute governing

the field, ecological aspects have not been taken into

consideration keeping in view the future need, the State and the

Authority must take the blame therefor. We must assume that

these aspects of the matter were taken into consideration by the

Authority and the State. But the rights of the parties cannot be

intermeddled with so long as an appropriate amendment in the

legislation is not brought into force.

* * *

15. The law in this behalf is explicit. Right of a person to

construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable

right. The said right can only be regulated in terms of a

regulatory statute but unless there exists a clear provision the

same cannot be taken away. ….”

(emphasis supplied)

(d) In the matter of State of U.P. v. Manohar (2005) 2 SCC 126, this Court

observed:

“7. Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to

the citizens are declared by the Constitution. Although Article

19(1)(f) was deleted by the Forty-fourth Amendment to the

Constitution, Article 300-A has been placed in the Constitution,

which reads as follows:

65

“300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by

authority of law.—No person shall be deprived of his

property save by authority of law.”

8. This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for

deprivation of the respondent’s property by the appellants who

are State authorities. …”

(e) In Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2011) 9

SCC 354, this Court held: 

“83. The expression “law” which figures both in Article 21 and

Article 300-A must be given the same meaning. In both the cases

the law would mean a validly enacted law. In order to be valid

law it must be just, fair and reasonable having regard to the

requirement of Articles 14 and 21 as explained in Maneka

Gandhi. This is especially so, as “law” in both the Articles 21

and 300-A is meant to prevent deprivation of rights. Insofar as

Article 21 is concerned, it is a fundamental right whereas in

Article 300-A it is a constitutional right which has been given a

status of a basic human right.”

(f) It was further argued that planning laws are expropriatory and should

be strictly construed, and any ambiguity is to be construed in favour of the

property owner as laid down in Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd.v. & Anr. v. State

of U.P. & Anr. (supra) thus:

“129. Statutes which encroach upon rights, whether as regards

person or property, are subject to strict construction in the same

way as penal Acts. It is a recognised rule that they should be

interpreted, if possible, so as to respect such rights and if there is

any ambiguity, the construction which is in favour of the

freedom of the individual should be adopted. (See Maxwell on

The Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edn. by P. St. J. Langan.)

130. This Court in Devinder Singh7

 held that the Land

Acquisition Act is an expropriatory legislation and followed the

case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. v. Darius Shapur Chenai8

.

Therefore, it should be construed strictly. The Court has also

7

(2008) 1 SCC 728

8

(2005) 7 SCC 627

66

taken the view that even in cases of directory requirements,

substantial compliance with such provision would be necessary.”

(emphasis supplied)

(g) In  Ramchandra Ravindra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation,

(2017) 1 SCC 667, it was opined:

“67. It was also submitted that town planning and municipal

institutes are regulating and restricting the use of private

property under the aforesaid Acts. They are “expropriatory

legislation”. Thus they are liable to be construed strictly as laid

down in Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke &

Chemicals Ltd.9

”

(h) In  Chairman,   Indore   Vikas   Pradhikaran   v.   Pure   Industrial   Coke   &

Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 705, it was held:

“ 57. The Act being regulatory in nature as by reason thereof the

right of an owner of property to use and develop stands

restricted, requires strict construction. An owner of land

ordinarily would be entitled to use or develop the same for any

purpose unless there exists certain regulation in a statute or

statutory rules. Regulations contained in such statute must be

interpreted in such a manner so as to least interfere with the right

to property of the owner of such land. Restrictions are made in

larger public interest. Such restrictions, indisputably must be

reasonable ones. (See Balram Kumawat v. Union of India10;

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd.11

and Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.12) The

statutory scheme contemplates that a person and owner of land

should not ordinarily be deprived from the user thereof by way

of reservation or designation.

 58. Expropriatory legislation, as is well-known, must be given a

strict construction.”

(i) In State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas & Ors., (1969) 1 SCC 509, it

was held:

“55. …… Once the draft town-planning scheme is sanctioned,

the land becomes subject to the provisions of the Town Planning

9

Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors.(2007) 8 SCC 705.

10 (2003) 7 SCC 628

11 (2004) 1 SCC 391

12 (2004) 2 SCC 747

67

Act, and on the final town-planning scheme being sanctioned, by

statutory operation the title of the various owners is readjusted

and the lands needed for a public purpose vest in the local

authority. Land required for any of the purposes of a town

planning scheme cannot be acquired otherwise than under the

Act, for it is a settled rule of interpretation of statutes that when

power is given under a statute to do a certain thing in a certain

way the thing must be done in that way or not at all:”

(emphasis supplied)

(j) In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC

111, it was opined:

“40. The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property

must be strictly construed. It is well settled that when a statutory

authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the

same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and

other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature

of statute. They must act within the four corners thereof.”

(emphasis supplied)

(k) In  Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher

(2013) 5 SCC 627 it was held:

“43. …… This is the reason why time-limit of ten years has been

prescribed in Section 31(5) and also under Sections 126 and 127

of the 1966 Act for the acquisition of land, with a stipulation that

if the land is not acquired within six months of the service of

notice under Section 127 or steps are not commenced for

acquisition, reservation of the land will be deemed to have

lapsed. Shri Naphade’s interpretation of the scheme of Sections

126 and 127, if accepted, will lead to absurd results and the

landowners will be deprived of their right to use the property for

an indefinite period without being paid compensation. That

would tantamount to depriving the citizens of their property

without the sanction of law and would result in violation of

Article 300-A of the Constitution.”

(emphasis supplied)

88. It is quite apparent that particularly when the Monitoring Committee

is   not   empowered   to   take   action,   the   incumbents   could   not   have   been

deprived of the due process of protection in accordance with law.  As against

68

the action of the Monitoring Committee, no appeal lies elsewhere. Even High

Court is not authorized to entertain any matter and scrutinize its action,

such   is  the  drastic  step  taken  by  this  Court   by   way of  an  exceptional

measure in public interest, and it is confined to the misuse of residential

property   for   commercial   purpose   and   encroachments   and   unauthorized

construction on the public land, roads.

89. After going through the report of the Monitoring Committee and other

reports which have been relied upon by the Amicus Curiae, there is no

scintilla of doubt that the Monitoring Committee in the past at any point of

time   did   not   seal   any   residential   premises   being   used   for   residential

purposes, situated on the private land nor it could have ordered demolition.

The   ‘caption’   of   the   various   reports   of   Monitoring   Committee   i.e.

“PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR SEALING

OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES” makes

it absolutely clear that Monitoring Committee did not entertain any doubt

about the purpose for which it was constituted.   Apart from that, it was

authorized   by   subsequent   orders   to   act   with   respect   to   unauthorized

construction on the public land and roads that too, which violated the MPD2021.  

90. Learned Amicus  Curiae raised  the  alternative submission that  the

Monitoring Committee acted bonafidely at the instance of the letter written

by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.  We are of the opinion that the Monitoring

Committee could not have acted based on any such letter.   It was not

permissible for the Monitoring Committee to act in the matter.  May be that

69

it acted under some confusion created by the letter. Be that as it may.  We

do   not   want   to   go   further  into  the   matter   of   bona   fide.   However,   it   is

apparent that its action was beyond the purpose for which it had been

appointed.  

91. We are not going into the merits of the other submissions, whether the

premises   are   authorized   or   unauthorized,   can   be   regularized   or   not,

compounding can be done, or whether there is any deviation made.   The

report of the Monitoring Committee and findings recorded by it are of no use

as it had no such authority to go into the various questions. This Court did

not appoint the Monitoring Committee concerning each and every residential

building on private land not misused for commercial purposes and to deal

with the same. In the present matter, this Court itself is monitoring the

matter for a limited public purpose. It has not taken away the powers of

statutory authorities under the Act concerning other matters except specified

in the order.

92. Since we have considered only the ambit of powers of the Monitoring

Committee,   we  have   not   touched   with  the   submissions   which   were   not

relevant to decide, as raised by Mr. Govardhan.

93. We quash Report No.149 and other reports submitted subsequently in

connection with Report No.149 and entire action of sealing pursuant thereto.

We also quash notices issued directing demolition where the matter was

being heard by this Court and the Monitoring Committee had no power to

look into the matter and to take any action.  Let the property sealed as per

70

Report   No.149   be   de­sealed,   and   possession   be   restored   to   the   owners

forthwith.  Let this order be complied with within three days.  However, we

clarify that this order does not at all mean to belittle the yeomen service

done by the Monitoring Committee for protection of Delhi.  We also place on

record our deep appreciation for the selfless service done by Shri Ranjit

Kumar, Amicus Curiae, for the last 24 years, with unflinching hard work

and dedication along with his team of other Amicus in the matter. 

Issue notice in IA No.64993 of 2020.

..................................J.

               [ ARUN MISHRA ]

..................................J.

               [ B.R. GAVAI ]

..................................J.

           [ KRISHNA MURARI ] 

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 14, 2020.