Delhi Development — Misuse of residential premises — Sealing and de-sealing of properties — Jurisdiction of Monitoring Committee and Judicial Committee — De-sealing of shop-cum-residence — New Rajinder Nagar Market (LSC), New Delhi — Whether upper floors of Shop/Plot No. 106 intended for commercial use — Held, No.
Monitoring Committee (appointed vide orders dated 07.05.2004 and 24.03.2006 in M.C. Mehta case) was empowered only to prevent misuse of residential premises by conversion to commercial use. Later, a Judicial Committee (constituted vide order dated 13.09.2022) was empowered to hear matters relating to sealing/de-sealing, regularization, demolition, and encroachment.
Applicant sought de-sealing of Shop No.106, New Rajinder Nagar Market, claiming the entire building was intended for commercial use. Judicial Committee had passed a common order dated 18.12.2023 treating markets “en bloc”. MCD contended that only the ground floor was commercial, upper floors were residential, and there were unauthorized constructions.
Held: Judicial Committee’s order dealt only with markets in general, not with individual cases. Factual adjudication was necessary to determine the use of individual premises. Documents produced by applicant (lease deed of 06.08.1987, conveyance deed of 28.02.1989, sanctioned plan of 2005) showed only ground floor was commercial and upper floors were sanctioned as residential. No material showed that the first floor had been constructed or used commercially in 1961 as claimed.
Under Master Plan for Delhi (MPD) 2021, Local Shopping Centres (LSC) are divided into (i) planned LSCs (exclusively commercial) and (ii) designated LSCs (shop-cum-residences permitting commercial use of upper floors after payment of conversion charges). New Rajinder Nagar Market falls in a shop-cum-residence designated LSC. Hence, conversion of residential upper floors to commercial use is permissible only after payment of prescribed conversion charges and regularisation of excess Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and removal of non-compoundable deviations.
Applicant’s premises exceeded sanctioned FAR (162.32 existing as against 260.40 permissible), with further unauthorized structures. Consequently, request for de-sealing and commercial use of upper floors was rejected.
However, MCD directed to issue fresh notice for inspection, specify non-compoundable portions, and indicate conversion and penalty charges payable for regularization and conversion. Applicant permitted to comply by (i) removing non-compoundable constructions and (ii) paying conversion and penalty charges, after which commercial use of upper floors may be regularized.
Held:
“On a broad overview of the documents produced by the applicant with respect to Shop No.106 in New Rajinder Nagar Market, we find that the lease and the subsequent freehold rights granted permit only the ground floor to be used as commercial area. The upper floors though eligible for conversion, it can happen only with payment of the conversion charges. The additional FAR as built and existing in excess of that sanctioned will also have to be regularised by paying penalty charges and any non-compoundable constructions will have to be removed.”
(per K. Vinod Chandran, J. for the Bench)
Direction:
I.A. for de-sealing rejected.
MCD to issue inspection notice; joint inspection to be held.
Specific written order to be issued identifying:
(a) Non-compoundable constructions;
(b) Conversion charges for upper floors; and
(c) Penalty for excess FAR.
Applicant entitled to comply by removing non-compoundable portions and paying charges for regularization and conversion.
Result:
I.A. Nos. 203615/2024, 218080/2024 and 210981/2025 — Rejected with directions as above.2025 INSC 1274
Page 1 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. Nos.203615 & 218080 of 2024
and
I.A. No.210981 of 2025
in
Writ Petition (C) No.4677 of 1985
M.C. Mehta
…Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
O R D E R
1. The applicant is concerned with plot bearing No.106
and the building thereon situated in New Rajinder Nagar
Market (LSC), New Delhi, admeasuring approximately 89 sq.
yards. The petitioner by this I.A. prays for de-sealing the
‘commercial premises’ at plot No.106 relying on the common
order dated 18.12.2023 passed by a Judicial Committee
appointed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4677 of 1985. The very
same order has been challenged by the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in I.A. No.32418 of 2024. We are
in the present I.A. concerned only with the claim filed by the
individual for de-sealing of his premises.
Page 2 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
2. Before we go into the nitty gritty of the claim raised in
the I.A., we have to briefly notice the history of the litigation.
As has been submitted by the MCD, over a period of time
number of markets/neighbourhood shopping areas were
developed by the Land and Development Office (L&DO), the
Delhi Development Authority (DDA) & the MCD with
participation of private developers. Based on the Master Plan
for Delhi, 1962 (MPD’1962), the shopping facilities and the
shop-cum-residences were shown in the zonal development
plans wherein layout plans were approved for different
residential colonies by the MCD. Based on the Building ByeLaws, 1959 as amended in 1964, the occupiers of the shopcum-residences put the residential area also to commercial
use upon which show cause notices were issued against the
unauthorised conversions. W.P.(C) No.4677 of 1985, a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before this Court
complaining of the stifling environment within Delhi, seeking
multiple prayers to better effectuate the decongestion, like
shifting of heavy and noxious industries, stopping mining
activities in Aravali Hills in and around Delhi, demolition of
Page 3 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
colonies built on forest land as also misuse of premises and
unauthorized constructions.
3. In the said Writ Petition, this Court on 07.05.2004,
appointed a Monitoring Committee comprising of Chief
Secretary of Delhi, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi,
Commissioner of MCD and Vice-Chairman, DDA for
stoppage of illegal industrial activities. Later by order dated
24.03.2006, a three Member Monitoring Committee
comprising of the Former Advisor to the Election
Commission, Chairman of EPCA and a Major General (Retd.)
was appointed to oversee the implementation of law;
especially to proceed against offensive premises, built or
converted unauthorisedly. The Monitoring Committee
appointed in 2006 was divested of its powers in 2012 and
later it was restored in 2017. In the meanwhile, at one point
in 2012, the matters were also transferred to the High Court
which order was also recalled in the year 2017, for the slow
progress made in the High Court, on which date the
Monitoring Committee’s powers were also restored. The
Monitoring Committee proceeded under the authority
Page 4 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
granted by this Court and sealed residential premises on
leased/free hold land when the same was challenged before
this Court.
4. This Court by order dated 14.08.2020 categorically
found that the Monitoring Committee was appointed only to
prevent misuse of residential premises by conversion to
commercial use and not with respect to residential premise
used as such. The order specifically noticed the constitution
of a Special Task Force (STF) by order dated 25.04.2018
passed by this Court and found that the Monitoring
Committee at best could only make suggestions to the STF
with respect to encroachment on the public land, roads and
public places and not proceed peremptorily to seal the
premises, which would in effect deprive the land
owner/lessee from availing statutory remedies. Various
reports of the Monitoring Committee were referred to and
some extracted. The procedure of sealing, it was expressed,
carries with it civil consequences and there was a procedure
in place as per the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 19571
1
For brevity ‘the DMC Act’
Page 5 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
providing for an appeal to the Tribunal constituted. It was
found that the Monitoring Committee would not have the
statutory powers conferred on the authorities under the
enactment. The sealing of premises by the Monitoring
Committee was set aside and the notices issued for
demolition, on the reports of the Monitoring Committee,
were also quashed.
5. This Court again by order dated 13.09.2022 appointed
a Judicial Committee to consider the following aspects.
“i) Sealing and de-sealing of properties;
ii) Regularization and/or levy of penalties or
conversion charges;
iii) Demolition of unauthorized construction; and
iv) Directing the removal of encroachment.”
6. The Judicial Committee was conferred with the
jurisdiction to hear the challenge to the orders/decisions on
any of the above aspects passed by or on recommendations
of the Monitoring Committees constituted by this Court by
orders dated 07.05.2004 and 24.03.2006. The orders of the
Judicial Committee with respect to de-sealing and rejection
of the application as opined by this Court could be
Page 6 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
challenged before this Court wherein it was also observed
that this Court would adopt the SLP approach. The objection
raised by the learned Amicus Curiae regarding certain
applications filed by associations/federations was also
noticed and it was observed that the remedy for individual
cases cannot lie through the associations/federations, since
the factual scenario would vary. All applications pending
before this Court was hence referred to the Judicial
Committee for consideration and passing orders and the
associations/federations as also those seeking individual
relief were directed to approach the Judicial Committee
thereafter; except a challenge to the master plan, ordinances
issued from time to time, the application concerning the
marble markets and challenge to the constitution of the
Monitoring Committee and the STF. We have to immediately
notice that the order of the Judicial Committee challenged in
the above I.A. refers to the markets/shopping centres ‘en
bloc’ and does not deal with the individual case of the
applicant.
Page 7 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
7. We are hence of the opinion that the case of the
applicant to enable de-sealing by virtue of the order passed
by the Judicial Committee will have to be considered on the
merits of the facts arising on the subject premises.
8. We have heard Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior
Counsel, appearing for the applicant, learned Senior
Counsel Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, the Amicus Curiae and
Mr. Sanjib Sen, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
MCD.
9. On behalf of the applicant, it was submitted based on
the documents referred to from the I.A., compiled separately
for our convenience, to assert that the subject premises was
intended to be used commercially. Much reliance was also
placed on the order of the Judicial Committee which holds
that the properties in New Rajinder Nagar Market was
intended to be used on a commercial basis. The learned
Amicus Curiae and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the MCD, however asserted that only the ground floor could
be used as commercial space and even the applicant had
applied for construction of residential accommodation on the
Page 8 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
upper floors. Even after completion of the construction for
residential use, the building has been combined with the
adjacent plot, which is against the regulations, the master
plan and the various circulars and notifications issued in this
behalf. A number of such conversions from residential to
commercial have been permitted, based on payment of
conversion charges to ensure that the infrastructure
requirements could be met from such amounts. There was no
intention to enable the allottees of lands to have windfall
benefits, since that would run against the concept of
sustainable development. When residential spaces are
converted as commercial, there would be more footfalls and
there would be need to augment infrastructure; providing
parking spaces and other facilities for common use of the
public visiting the commercial spaces. It is also pointed out
that there are unauthorised constructions made by the
applicant which also has to be dealt with.
10. With respect to the order of the Judicial Committee
which has considered the relevant provisions of the law
juxtaposed with various office orders and dealt with the rival
Page 9 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
contentions, it is more on a general manner and not on an
individual basis. Insofar as New Rajinder Nagar Market is
concerned, the association’s application was before the
Committee and the specific premises referred to are plot
Nos.106 and 79, the first of which belongs to the applicant.
Reliance was placed on a letter issued by the L & DO dated
19.11.1957 to one Dr. K.L Tuli, wherein it was specified that
there was no objection to the sanction of the plan if the first
floor is being used for commercial purpose and not for
residential use. Reference was also made to lease deeds
dated 16.05.1974 and 19.07.1975 pertaining to the Old and
New Rajinder Nagar markets which speaks of erection of
single storied building containing one business flat or double
storied building with one or two business flats. The word
‘business’ was substituted for residential which clearly
indicates that the use intended was commercial and not
residential.
11. We are not persuaded to place any reliance on the
letter issued to a third-party or to the supplementary lease
deeds which are not specified as the one in the name of the
two plots referred therein. We would, hence, go by the
Page 10 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
arguments addressed before us with reference to the various
documents, which though may not be a strictly SLP approach,
will have to be resorted, to enable factual consideration. This
is more so since the consideration by the Judicial Committee
has virtually made ineffective the statutory remedies where
a factual adjudication would have been possible.
12. This Court has also by Order dated 22.08.2024 looked
at the order of the Judicial Committee dated 18.12.2023 and
found prima facie that the Committee has not looked into
individual cases of buildings/units. It has also been observed
that it is necessary for the Committee to call upon the
applicant to produce copies of the sanctioned plans in
respect of individual buildings/units and copies of
documents of allotments/ purchases. These are the
documents which the Judicial Committee has not looked into,
which was to be done on a case-to-case basis.
13. As has been noticed in the order of the Judicial
Committee the influx of refugee migration to Delhi in the
1950s necessitated the formulation of a master plan for
focused development, helmed by the local authority but with
private participation. The subject plot was allotted to the
Page 11 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
predecessor-in-interest of the applicant through a certificate
of possession produced as Annexure A-29, the layout plan of
which is produced as Annexure A-30. The letter of the L&DO
dated 09.11.1957 with reference to one Dr. K.L. Tuli relied on
by the Judicial Committee is produced as Annexure A-31.
The contention of the applicant is that the subject plot was
given in possession to the predecessors in interest as per
Annexure A-29, specifically designating the property as a
shop which squarely indicates the commercial purpose for
which it is intended. Further, as specified in Annexure A-31
which is a similarly situated plot in the very same market, the
first floor was permitted use as a commercial space. It is the
further contention that the predecessor-in-interest of the
applicant, in the year 1961, constructed the first floor of the
premises as commercial, after obtaining necessary
permission. Subsequently on 06.08.1987, a lease deed was
issued in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the
applicant as per Annexure A-37 which also showed the
nature of the property as commercial, after which the
conveyance deed was issued in the name of the predecessor-
Page 12 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
in-interest of the applicant, indicating, again, the plot to be
commercial.
14. Contemplating sale of the lease hold rights, the
predecessor-in-interest approached the L&DO for an
inspection and the proforma drawn up for the said purpose
Annexure A-40 also indicated it as commercial. The
applicant himself was called upon to pay additional ground
rent at commercial rates for the additional floors (first floor)
which was paid on 27.12.1988 as evidenced at Annexure A41 after which the permission for sale was obtained in 1989.
The applicant came into possession of the premises vide sale
deed dated 28.02.1989 and it was thereafter that an
application was made to convert the property from leasehold
to freehold. The input checklist for conversion, as prepared
by the L&DO Annexure A-45 also indicated the property to
be a shop and the charges paid by the applicant for
conversion was also at commercial rates. There was no
undertaking made by the applicant at any point of time nor
by his predecessor-in-interest that the property would be
Page 13 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
used only for residential purpose or no commercial purpose
would be carried on in the upper floors.
15. Before we look at the documents, as referred to by the
applicant, we have to specifically notice that the admitted
position is that the ground floor of the property in question
was given in possession on lease, and subsequently
conveyed, to be used as a shop for commercial purpose. The
question is only whether the upper floors can be constructed
and used for commercial purpose. Annexure A-29, the
certificate of possession, specifically speaks of house No. 32
in Block No.25 out of which Shop No.106 in Rajinder Nagar
was given possession to the predecessor in interest. We
cannot place any reliance on Annexure A-31 since there is
nothing in the said document of 1957, indicating that the New
Rajinder Nagar Market was intended as a fully commercial
one. Nor is anything placed before us to indicate that the
documents of such property was similar to the demise of
possession in favour of the applicant's predecessor-ininterest. Further admittedly on the said date there was no
additional construction sought for by the predecessor-in-
Page 14 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
interest and what existed was the ground floor shop.
Annexure A-34 is an office order issued by the L&DO in the
year 1979 specifically dealing with shop-cum-residences
and the user clause having been specified as shop-cumresidence which has no bearing on the issue.
16. Annexure A-37 is a lease deed dated 06.08.1987 in
favour of Shri Hira Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of Shop
No.106 of New Rajinder Nagar which does not speak of any
first floor having been constructed as contended by the
applicant, in the year 1961. On the very same day, Annexure
A-38 deed of conveyance was also executed, which, in its
Schedule I, specifically speaks of a single storied building
which again puts to peril the contention of the applicant that
there was a first floor constructed in the year 1961 and the
same was also intended for commercial use.
17. Annexure A-39 is a notice of inspection issued to the
predecessor-in-interest in the year 1988 when as contented
by the applicant the leasehold rights in the premises was
sought to be sold. Therein it has been specifically indicated
that the existing building as per the previous plan sanctioned
Page 15 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
under lease/construct by CPWD is only 570 sq. feet on the
ground floor. True, under paragraph 10, the plans under
L&DO were referred to which speaks of first floor coverage
of 529 sq. feet, which as per the proforma prepared on
inspection had not materialised at that point. There is nothing
in Annexure A-41 grant of sale permission to indicate that the
payments were made on commercial rates. The sale deed
itself is relied on by the applicant, produced as Annexure A43 which is dated 28.02.1989 by which the leasehold rights
was transferred to the applicant. The specific recital in the
said deed indicates a government-built Shop No.106,
measuring 89 sq. yards situated in the abadi of New Rajinder
Nagar, Shankar Road, New Delhi with the specified
boundaries, the leasehold rights in which were intended to
be conveyed. Hence, as on the date on which the sale was
made to the applicant, Shop No.106 had only the ground
floor, in the plot of 89 sq. yards area.
18. It is also pertinent that this Court by order dated
20.05.2025 directed the officers of the MCD to visit the
premises and report on the compliances. It was also
Page 16 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
specified that those who want relief of de-sealing must apply
to this Court. This Court also observed that if such
applications are made before Court, the same would be
considered on its merits without being influenced by orders
passed by the Judicial Committee. In this context, we cannot
but notice the finding of the Judicial Committee with respect
to a circular issued by the DDA dated 22.06.2025, which
referred to a case filed by one Asha Pal Gulati in which the
High Court of Delhi after examining the issue and keeping in
view the circular issued by the L&DO in 1983 directed that
with respect to the use of the top floors there would be no
proceedings for misuse. We have not been informed, how
the said circular would apply to the applicant herein,
especially in the context of the communication issued by the
DDA itself on 27.11.2018 produced as Annexure P/1 in I.A.
No.32418 of 2024. In the said letter it has been specified that
shop-cum-residence/shop-plot complex declared as LSC
and CSC (Local Shopping Centre and Convenience
Shopping Centre), wherein standard plan was used, the
upper floor was intended to be residential. Whereas in shopplot complex which were not made as per the standard plan,
Page 17 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
the total plan was for commercial use. The conversion was
allowed after payment of conversion charges in which
circumstances the earlier clarification issued by the DDA was
annulled especially noticing that there was no intention for
the owners of the shop-cum-residential complexes to obtain
windfall gains.
19. The above communication has to be juxtaposed with
Annexure A49, Deed of Conveyance issued in the name of
the applicant herein. It is true that in Annexure A47 and A48
referring to the execution of ‘Conveyance Deed and
Conversion from lease hold to free hold’, it was specified that
there was no undertaking given by the applicant that the
premises will be used only for residential purposes.
However, the absence of the undertaking cannot lead to the
corollary that the permission was for commercial purposes
especially when the plan appended to the Conveyance Deed
as seen from I.A. No.203615 of 2024 speaks of “proposed
shop-cum-residential building plan of plot No.106 situated at
New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi for Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora
(the applicant)”. The said plan indicates sanction of
Page 18 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
residential apartments over the shop building and a
basement for storage purposes. The sanction is for
residential buildings with kitchen, bathroom, bedroom etc.
Hence the plan approved for construction of the upper floors
was clearly intended for residential purposes, as applied for
by the applicant, putting again to peril, the contention that
the predecessor-in-interest had constructed the first floor
and put it to commercial use.
20. The learned Senior Counsel for the MCD further
enlightened us on the different categories of markets across
Delhi with reference to the Master Plans notified for Delhi.
The first Master Plan for Delhi was MPD-1962, replaced by
the 2nd Master Plan, MPD-2001 published on 01.08.1990 and
then the 3rd Master Plan, MPD-2021 which came into effect on
07.02.2007. We have from the documents produced by the
applicant himself, found that the applicant has obtained a
sanctioned plan for construction only in the year 2005. The
Master Plan for 2021 conceived the Community Centres (CC)
as shopping and business centres while the Local Shopping
Centre (LSC) and the Convenience Shopping Centre (CSC)
Page 19 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
would cater to the day-to-day needs of the local population.
Certain areas developed prior to 1962 like Lajpat Nagar,
Rajouri Garden, Tilak Nagar, Kamla Nagar and others which
existed prior to MPD-1962 had consolidation of commercial
activities.
21. The LSCs were categorised into two categories, one
meant exclusively for commercial use and the other for
mixed use where commercial activity was allowed to be
carried out on the ground floor and residential activity
permitted on the upper floors. MPD-2021 designated some of
the shop-cum-residential complexes which were earlier
termed as ‘shop-cum-residence’ plots/shops as Local
Shopping Centres and permitted commercial use of floors
above the ground floor, subject to payment of conversion
charges. The former category of LSCs wherein exclusively
commercial activities were carried out, were thus called
planned LSCs while those in which conversion of the
‘residential’ to ‘commercial’ was permitted were called
designated LSCs. New Rajinder Nagar in which the
applicant’s plot is situated has been notified as a pre-1962
built up residential and rehabilitation colony. The
Page 20 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
understanding of the applicant was also not otherwise since
the sanctioned plan produced along with the IA, as applied
for the applicant, clearly indicates the sanction of residential
areas on the upper floors.
22. One of the distinguishing factors is that the planned
LSCs, where commercial use was permitted, uniformly had a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 100 in all the Master Plans for Delhi.
Insofar as the designated LSC’s are concerned, FAR was
always one that was permissible for residential plots which
could go up to a maximum of 350 FAR. The Counter Affidavit
filed on behalf of the MCD tabulates the FAR as per the
sanction granted to the applicant which is 162.32 while the
existing area is 217.08; bringing forth an additional of 69.22
sq. mtrs, in excess of that sanctioned for the area of the plot,
which is 89 sq. yards. The permissible FAR upto 350 is
computed as 3.50 x 74.40 sq. mtrs. which equals 260.40 sq.
mtrs for the subject plot. This clearly indicates, according to
the MCD, that the applicant’s plot is situated in the shop-cumresidential LSC which by MPD-2021 is a designated LSC
permitting conversion of the residential area to a commercial
Page 21 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
area after payment of the conversion charges. The Counter
Affidavit also speaks of FAR in excess of that sanctioned,
inviting penalty charges for the purpose of regularisation.
The Counter Affidavit also notices non-compoundable
deviations on the 1st floor and 2nd floor on the back side.
23. On a broad overview of the documents produced by
the applicant with respect to Shop no. 106 in New Rajinder
Nagar Market, we find that the lease and the subsequent
freehold rights granted permits only the ground floor to be
used as commercial area. The applicant though contends that
the 1st floor was built by his predecessor-in-interest and used
as a commercial area, there is nothing produced to establish
the same. On the contrary, the conveyance deed obtained by
the applicant as produced by him in the IA, referred to by us,
has been annexed with an approval for construction of upper
floors in the year 2005, which approval is also for residential
spaces on the upper floors. We find the New Rajinder Nagar
Market to be a shop-cum-residence LSC as designated in the
MPD-2021. The FAR of the building already constructed, with
the upper floors further fortify the contention of the MCD that
Page 22 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
over the shop residential spaces were constructed, since the
FAR sanctioned exceeds that for commercial spaces. The
upper floors though eligible for conversion, it can happen
only with payment of the conversion charges. The additional
FAR as built and existing in excess of that sanction will also
have to be regularised by paying penalty charges and any
non-compoundable constructions will have to be removed.
In the above circumstances, we reject the I.A. filed by the
applicant to de-seal the premises at Shop/Plot no. 106, New
Rajinder Nagar Market and also reject the prayer for
permitting the use of upper floors as commercial.
24. We have to notice from the Counter Affidavit, the
violations which were found on inspection with notice to the
applicant. However, we direct the MCD to issue a further
notice for inspection which shall be jointly done and the
violations intimated by a written order specifically pointing
out the non-compoundable constructions. The order shall
also indicate the conversion charges payable for the upper
floors and the penalty charges for regularisation of excess
FAR from that sanctioned. The applicant would be entitled to
comply with the order passed removing the non-
Page 23 of 23
I.A. No. 203615 of 2024 in W. P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
compoundable constructions/ projections and depositing
the conversion charges as also the penalty charges for
regularisation of the excess FAR so as to carry out
commercial activities in the upper floors.
25. With the above directions, the I.As stand rejected.
……….……………………. CJI.
(B. R. GAVAI)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi;
October 31, 2025.
