Supreme Court of India
M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2020 INSC 492
- Decided
- 14 August 2020
- Disposal
- Directions issued
- Bench
- ARUN MISHRA
Holding
The Monitoring Committee lacks authority to seal purely residential premises on private land not misused for commercial purposes, rendering the sealing and demolition orders ultra vires.
Summary
The Supreme Court revisited a writ petition filed in 1985 concerning environmental and land‑use violations in Delhi. The Court examined whether the Monitoring Committee, appointed in 2006 to curb the misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes, had the authority to seal residential properties on private land that were not being used commercially. Relying on its earlier orders, the Court held that the Committee was never empowered to act against purely residential premises and that any sealing or demolition orders issued under Report No.149 were ultra vires. Consequently, the Court quashed Report No.149, the related sealing and demolition notices, and directed that the properties be de‑sealed and possession restored to the owners. The judgment reaffirmed that deprivation of property must follow the procedure prescribed by law, notably the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, and that the Committee must act only within the limited mandate conferred by the Court.
Issues considered
- Whether the Monitoring Committee has jurisdiction to seal residential premises on private land that are not being used for commercial purposes.
- Whether the sealing and demolition orders issued under Report No.149 are valid under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
- Whether the actions of the Monitoring Committee violate the constitutional protection of property under Article 300A.
- Whether the statutory provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, govern the sealing of such premises.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 300A
- Delhi Development Act, 1957
- Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957s. 343, s. 345, s. 345-A, s. 347(A), s. 347(B)
Subjects
Monitoring Committeesealing of propertyresidential premisescommercial misuseArticle 300ADelhi Municipal Corporation Actjurisdictionproperty rightsunauthorised constructionexpropriation
Judgment
718 [2020]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 10 S.C.R. 718 [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A M.C. MEHTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985)
B AUGUST 14, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, B. R. GAVAI AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Present writ petition
was filed in 1985 concerning issues like environment in Delhi,
C
shifting of heavy industries, misuse of premises (including
unauthorized construction) etc. – Supreme Court appointed
Monitoring Committee in 2006 to put restraint on misuse of the
residential premises for unauthorized/commercial purpose –
However, Monitoring Committee acting on a letter written by SDM
D also sealed residential premises on private land not used for
commercial purpose – Propriety of – Held: Monitoring Committee
could not have acted based on any such letter – It is apparent from
the various orders passed by this Court and reports of the Monitoring
Committee from time to time that it was never authorized to take
action against the residential premises not being used for commercial
E
purposes – It was appointed only to check the misuse of residential
properties for commercial purposes – Later, it was also directed to
look into encroachment and unauthorized colonies on the public
land – At no point in time, Monitoring Committee was empowered
by this Court to act vis-à-vis the purely residential premises on private
F land – If there is unauthorized construction or deviation, the requisite
provisions are under the 1957 Act – Monitoring Committee could
not have sealed the residential premises not misused for commercial
purpose as done vide Report No.149, nor directed their demolition
– Report No.149, other connected reports and entire action of
sealing pursuant thereto is quashed – Demolition notices also
G
quashed – Properties sealed as per Report No.149 be de-sealed
and possession restored to the owners – Constitution of India –
Article 300A – Delhi Development Act, 1957 – Delhi Laws (Special
Provisions) Act, 2006.
H
718
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 719
Issuing directions, the Court A
HELD: 1.1 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.
When the various orders passed by this Court from time to time, B
before the constitution of the Monitoring Committee, are
considered it is found 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 C
Delhi, (ii) Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (iii) Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and (iv) Vice-Chairman of Delhi
Development Authority. It was ordered that Monitoring
Committee would be responsible for the stoppage of illegal
industrial activities. The Monitoring Committee was constituted D
by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2006 in M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 399. The only
question for consideration of this Court was the misuse of the
residential premises for illegal or commercial purposes. It is clear
from the order dated 16.2.2006 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
that this Court noted unauthorized construction but appointed E
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. The court again emphasized
that its order should be carried out in letter and spirit in the case F
of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India reported in (2006) 3 SCC 429
passed on 24.3.2006. 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. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court
on 24.4.2018 for the constitution of the Special Task Force, an G
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 Monitoring
Committee was authorized to take care of the unauthorized
colonies, and the Special Task Force was directed to remove the H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A encroachments from the public roads and public streets. This
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
B
report as to encroachment on the public land. This Court
specifically dealt with in several orders the questions relating to
power and the purpose for which the Monitoring Committee had
been appointed. Matter of encroachment is a matter of concern,
but the Monitoring Committee can act within the four corners of
C 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. [Paras
17-19 (i), (ii), (vi), 20, 31, 32, 36 and 43][732-C-E; 733-A-B; 735-
C; 743-E-F; 744-F; 760-D; 761-C-D; 763-A-B; 766-G]
D M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC
399 : [2006] 2 SCR 264; M. C. Mehta v. Union of India
reported in (2006) 3 SCC 429 – referred to.
1.2 It is apparent from the various orders passed by this
Court from time to time and from the various reports of the
E 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
F 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 vis-à-vis to the purely residential
premises. The power of sealing of property carries civil
G 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,
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 721
347(A), 347(B). The mode of action and adjudication under the A
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
B
for the commercial purpose as done vide Report No.149, nor it
could have directed the demolition of those residential properties.
[Paras 85, 86][782-H; 783-A-E]
1.3 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 C
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. 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 D
protection in accordance with law. As against 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 E
encroachments and unauthorized construction on the public land,
roads. [Paras 87, 88][783-E-F; 788-E-F]
State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC
77 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 1; K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd v.
State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1 : [2011] 13 SCR F
636; T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member, (2006)
8 SCC 502 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 534; State of U. P. v.
Manohar (2005) 2 SCC 126 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR
911; Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of
U. P. & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 354 : [2011] 12 SCR 191; G
Ramchandra Ravindra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal
Corporation (2017) 1 SCC 667 : [2016] 9 SCR 373;
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial
Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 705 :
[2007] 6 SCR 799; State of Gujarat v. Shantilal
H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A Mangaldas & Ors., (1969) 1 SCC 509 : [1969] 3 SCR
341; Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P)
Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 517;
Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai
Bhimaji Dawkher (2013) 5 SCC 627 : [2013] 2 SCR
664 – relied on.
B
1.4 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,
C 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
D 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 MPD-2021. The alternative submission
was raised that the Monitoring Committee acted bonafidely at
E the instance of the letter written by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
This Court is 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 it
acted under some confusion created by the letter. Be that as it
F may. This Court does 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. This Court is 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.
G 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.
H In the present matter, this Court itself is monitoring the matter
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 723
for a limited public purpose. It has not taken away the powers of A
statutory authorities under the Act concerning other matters
except specified in the order. [Paras 89-91][788-G-H; 789-A-F]
1.5 Report No.149 and other reports submitted
subsequently in connection with Report No.149 and entire action
of sealing pursuant thereto is quashed. Notices issued directing B
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 are also quashed. The property sealed as
per Report No.149 be de-sealed, and possession be restored to
the owners forthwith. [Para 93][789-G-H]
C
A. R Antulay v. R. S. Nayak & Anr. (1988) 2 SCC 602 :
[1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1; Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra
(1995) 6 SCC 447 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 89; Prem
Chand Garg v. Executing Commissioner U.P., AIR 1963
SC 996 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 885; SCBA v. Union of
India (1998) 4 SCC 409 : [1998] 2 SCR 795; Arif D
Hameed v. State of J & K, (1989) 2 Suppl. SCC 364 :
[1989] 3 SCR 19 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para 10 E
[1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 89 referred to Para 10
[1963] Suppl. SCR 885 referred to Para 10
[1998] 2 SCR 795 referred to Para 10
[1989] 3 SCR 19 referred to Para 10 F
[2006] 2 SCR 264 referred to Para 19
(2006) 3 SCC 429 referred to Para 20
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 1 relied on Para 87
[2011] 13 SCR 636 relied on Para 87 G
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 534 relied on Para 87
[2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 911 relied on Para 87
[2011] 12 SCR 191 relied on Para 87
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A [2016] 9 SCR 373 relied on Para 87
[2007] 6 SCR 799 relied on Para 87
[1969] 3 SCR 341 relied on Para 87
[2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 517 relied on Para 87
B [2013] 2 SCR 664 relied on Para 87
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
4677 of 1985.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
C With
W.P.(C) No. 266, 263, 264, 450, 464, 470, 569, 563, 610 Of 2006,
W.P.(C) No. 212 & 229 Of 2008, W.P.(C) No. 144 of 2009 and SLP(C)
No. 33454 Of 2018.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sanjay Jain, ASGs, Anil
D Grover, AAG, Haryana, Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Advs.
(ACs.), Wasim A. Qadri, Mukul Rohatgi, R. C. Mishra, Sanjiv Sen,
Siddharth Luthra, Dhruv Mehta, Nalin Kohli, Rakesh
K. Khanna, Sr. Advs., A.D.N. Rao, (AC), D. L. Chidanada, Ms. Suhasini
Sen, SS Rebello, Rajat Nair, Aankhi Ghosh, Rajesh Kr. Singh, Raj Bahadur
E Yadav, B. V. Balram Das, Gaurav Mitra, Nikhil Rohotgi, Aman Gupta,
Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ms. Ananya Mishra, Llin Saraswat, Dr. Charu
Mathur, Ms. Garima Prashad, G.S. Oberoi, Ms. Mrinalini Sengupta, Akraj
Kumar, Padmesh Mishra, Praveen Swarup, Ajay Bansal, Soumo Palit,
Kanishik Chaudhary, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Rahul
Khurana, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Ms. Anil Katiyar, D.N. Goburdhun, Alok
F Gupta, Naveen Kumar, Vijay Panjwani, Ejaz Maqbool, Abhimanyu
Bhandari, Ms. Roohina Dua, Cheitanya Madan, Ms. Akriti Chaubey,
Ms. Aishwarya Sarkar, Ms. Shubhangni Jain, Pankaj Singhal, Yashraj
Singh Deora, Rahul Narayan, Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh
Mishra, Yashraj Singh Deora, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Sanjana Nangia,
G Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Rohan Thawani, Hardeep Singh Anand, Ms. Prerna
Mehta, Tileshwar Prasad, Naresh Aditya Madhav, Ms. Rachana Joshi
Issar, Siddhesh Kotwal, Divyansh Tiwari, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Karuna
Nundy, Utsav Mukherjee, Dipanshu Joshi, Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Usha
Nandini V., Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya (for M/s Saharya &
Co.), Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma Ms. Sheena Taqui,
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 725
Kshitij Vaibhav, Ms. Suwarna Dubey, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Anil Katiyar, A
D.N. Goburdhun, Naveen Kumar, Ejaz Maqbool, Rohan Kharbanda,
Mushtaq Ahmad, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, V. K. Verma, S. Chandra Shekhar,
Ms. Prasanthi Prasad, Prakash Kumar Singh, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal,
Abhinav Mukerji, Surya Kant, M/S. Law Associates, Prashant Bhushan,
Hardeep Singh Anand, M. C. Dhingra, Manu Shanker Mishra, Prakash
B
Kumar Singh, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, M/s. Parekh & Co., Pravir
Choudhary, Md. Farman, Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Tejaswi Kumar
Pradhan, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Sanjeev Anand, Ms. Uttara
Babbar, Abhay Kumar, Satyendra Kumar, Sunil Kumar Jain,
Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Prashant Chaudhary, Suresh Chandra
Tripathy, P. Parmeswaran, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Amita Gupta, C
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Devendra Singh, Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, Nikilesh
Ramachandran, D. N. Goburdhan, Abhijit Sengupta, Ms. Binu Tamta, T.
L. Garg, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Surya Kant, Tarun Johri, Avijit Bhattacharjee,
Ashwani Kumar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Sanjay Kapur, Sudhir
Naagar, A. Venayagam Balan, S. Chandra Shekhar, Shiv Prakash
D
Pandey, Ms. Manju Jetley, Harish Pandey, Shekhar Kumar, Annam D.
N. Rao, Satish Aggarwal, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms.
Prasanthi Prasad, Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Ajit Sharma, Ms. Prerna
Mehta, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, Harsh V. Surana,
Raj Kamal, Himinder Lal, M. P. Shorawala, Arvind Gupta, Abhas Kumar,
Vivek Narayan Sharma, Milind Kumar, Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Ajay Kumar E
Singh, Gagan Gupta, M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, Yoginder Handoo,
Jasmeet Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, T. Mahipal, M/
S. Karanjawala & Co., Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rajat Joseph, Ravinder
Kumar Yadav, Shekhar Prit Jha, O.P. Bhadani, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ejaz
Maqbool, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Anand Mishra, Ramesh Kumar
F
Mishra, Ms. S. Janani, Ashok Anand, Karunakar Mahalik, Naveen R.
Nath, Vishnu Sharma, M. M. Kashyap, A. Raghunath, Ms. K. V. Bharathi
Upadhyaya, Ms. Rajani Ohri Lal, Rakesh Mishra, Pranaya Kumar
Mohapatra, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Sanjeev
Anand, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Abhay Kumar, Satyendra Kumar, Sunil
Kumar Jain, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Prashant Chaudhary, Suresh G
Chandra Tripathy, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Ms. Ruby
Singh Ahuja, Devendra Singh, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Abhijit Sengupta,
Ms. Binu Tamta, T. L. Garg, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Tarun Johri, Avijit
Bhattacharjee, Ashwani Kumar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Sanjay
Kapur, Sudhir Naagar, A. Venayagam Balan, S. Chandra Shekhar, Shiv
H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A Prakash Pandey, Harish Pandey, Shekhar Kumar, Annam D.N. Rao,
Satish Aggarwal, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Prasanthi
Prasad, Ms. Prerna Mehta, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury,
Raj Kamal, Himinder Lal, Arvind Gupta, Vivek Narayan Sharma, Milind
Kumar, Ajay Kumar Singh, Gagan Gupta, M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates,
Yoginder Handoo, Jasmeet Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prakash Ranjan
B
Nayak, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J.
IN RE: ISSUE RELATING TO JURISDICTION OF THE
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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 the Master Plan (MPD-2021) 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 by laws/statutory provisions. It was
G
submitted that the Monitoring Committee was not authorized to take
action, and the residential premises should be de-sealed. 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
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 727
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
acts, by-laws, and policy. It has to be regularized for which prayer was A
pending before concerned authorities.
4. It was further contended that it is a residential area, farmhouses
were notified as Low-Density Residential Areas, and the premises were
used as residential premises. They are in accord with MPD-2021.
“Mehrauli” is an urbanized village. The Monitoring Committee was not B
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 MPD-2021. Reliance has also been placed on
NDRA Policy.
5. We have heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy and C
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 D
parties.
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 E
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 F
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 MPD-2021 is
notified on 7.2.2007.
G
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,
H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 MPD-2021for unauthorized encroachments and other illegal
construction activities.
B
8. Learned Amicus Curiae also argued that the Monitoring
Committee is 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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. Thus, it is a
G 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
H the Government of NCT of Delhi, has raised the following arguments:
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 729
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
a. That the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short, “the A
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
B
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 C
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 D
lies before the 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 E
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. F
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 G
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
H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 power sealed the premises, which
B
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.
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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 Committee to seal the residential premises used for the
residential purposes that too situated on private land. Thus, the action of
G 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.
H The Monitoring Committee referred to the orders dated 23.11.2006,
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 731
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
12.2.2007, 9.3.2007, and 10.4.2007 to justify its action. It was argued A
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.
B
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 C
passed by this Court.
16. Ms. Karuna Nundy, learned counsel, argued that under Article
300-A 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 Court. When the Monitoring Committee is not D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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
H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 under the Act and section 347E deals with the
bar of jurisdiction of courts. Once the statutory right is conferred, it
B
cannot be dealt with by the Monitoring Committee until and unless it is
authorized.
DISCUSSION:
17. The Monitoring Committee was appointed and empowered
C 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,
D 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) Vice-Chairman of Delhi
E 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
F 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
G 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 the directions contained in the
judgment.
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 733
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
The first Progress Report by the Committee shall be filed A
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: B
“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 C
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 D
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.
E
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 F
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. G
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-
H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 2001 and 20-2-2002. By order dated 31-7-2001 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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)
G
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?
H 1
W.P. No.725 of 1994 dated 31-7-2001
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 735
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
B. Whether DDA, under the Delhi Development Act, has also A
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.” B
(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 C
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 large-scale conversion of residential premises for
commercial use, thus:
“33. Keeping future needs in view, experts prepare master plans. D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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: H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A “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 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”.
B
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.
C 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
D
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
E (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
F
those provisions.”
(emphasis supplied)
(iv) The court eventually issued directions in respect of other
residential properties used illegally for commercial purposes, thus:
G “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
H 345-A read with Sections 347, 343 and 344 of the DMC Act stating
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 737
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
that Property No. 39, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar III was being A
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
B
respondents to place on record the plan for the construction of
the building which may have been sanctioned so 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 C
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 D
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:
E
“Annexure R-1
No. J-13036/3/96-DDIIB
Government of India
Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, F
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
Dated: 28-8-2000
To,
1. Shri P.S. Bhatnagar, G
Chief Secretary,
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi,
Delhi.
H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 2. Shri P.K. Ghosh,
Vice-Chairman,
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
B 3. Shri S.P. Aggarwal,
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Town Hall, Delhi.
4. Shri B.P. Misra,
C
Chairperson,
New Delhi Municipal Committee,
Palika Kendra, New Delhi.
5. The Development Commissioner,
D
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi,
Town Hall, New Delhi.
Subject: Unauthorised encroachment and illegal
constructions in Delhi
E
Sir,
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,
F 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:
G (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
H as arrears of land revenue.
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 739
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
(iii) In all cases of illegal constructions, prosecution A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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. E
(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 F
the plots are cut by the 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- G
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.
H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A (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
B
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.
C 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,
D 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
E against the subordinate/supervisory staff would be taken by the
Government.
Yours faithfully,
Sd./-
F (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,
G Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. L&DO, Ministry of UD&PA, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. DG(W), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
Sd/-
H (N.L. Upadhyay)
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 741
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
53. Now, we revert to the task of implementation. Despite its A
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 that a
beginning should not be made to set things right. If the entire
B
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 C
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
D
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) E
(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 F
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 G
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 H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 large-scale misuser, in
violation of laws, cannot take place without the active connivance
B
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:
C “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
D 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
E 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.
F 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
G
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
H in consultation with the monitoring committee.
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 743
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
5. The appropriate directions for action, if any, against the A
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 B
opening another entrance for use of premises.
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 C
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 D
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 above-mentioned order dated 16.2.2006 in E
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.
F
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 G
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
H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B associations whereas IAs Nos.1918-19 have been filed by an
individual business house. The applicant of IA No.1919 has filed
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
C 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
D 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
E 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)
F 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
G 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:
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 745
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
“I.A.No.1983: A
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 Committee B
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 C
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 afore-
quoted recommendation is not accepted. D
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 E
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
F
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 G
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 H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A ‘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
B 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
C 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,
2007.
The Monitoring Committee is directed to supply copy of
D 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
E
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.
F
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:
G
“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
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 747
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
placed at par with other covered by Direction No.3 of the order A
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.
B
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.
C
*** *** ***
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A Corporation of Delhi in the last 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
B 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
C under the MPD-2021 and not for those which were not covered by the
Master Plan. Following order was passed on 12.2.2007:
“….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
D 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:
E “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
F 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 MPD-2021. Thus, the confusion sought to be created based on MPD-
2021 is absolutely unjustified. The order dated 10.4.2007 is an interim
G
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
H Report No.34, contents of which are placed by following orders:
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 749
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
“We are shocked to find that in spite of our earlier orders, A
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 09.04.2007,
the police authorities did not cooperate in the matter of sealing of
the unauthorized premises.
B
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. C
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 D
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. E
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 F
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 Amicus-
Curiae. The necessary information and materials be given to
G
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. H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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.
Till the matter is heard by the Court, the Monitoring
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 751
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
IA Nos.2518-2521 A
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. B
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) C
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 D
the user’s change.
28. The order dated 30.04.2013 was passed regarding the misuse/
non-conforming use of the residential premises thus:
“3. The judgment in regard to the misuse/non-conforming use of
E
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 F
had power to seal the premises for non-conforming 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 G
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.”
H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B of sealing of premises, which were being put to the non-conforming
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
C 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
D 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 restored. While the order was reserved on
the aforesaid date on IA No.93010 and 93007 of 2017, the relevant
portion is extracted:
E “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
F 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.
G
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
H for other commercial activities. For the present, we are concerned
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 753
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
with the misuse of residential premises for other commercial A
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
B
*** *** ***
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 C
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: D
“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 that a beginning should not be made to set things E
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 F
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 G
the gaze of everyone, without having any respect and regard
for law and other citizens.” [Emphasis supplied by us].
2
(2004) 6 SCC 588
H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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 large-scale misuser, in violation of laws,
cannot take place without the active connivance of the officers.
G 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
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 755
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
premises for commercial purposes should cease the misuse on A
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 B
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.
C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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. G
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
3 W.P.(C) No.4677 of 1985
4 (2013) 16 SCC 336 H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B its scrutiny. We also direct that no construction, temporary or
permanent, shall be made on the premises which have been
the 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.”
C 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
D 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
E
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:
F (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 notified to the Monitoring
G 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,
H 5 (2012) 11 SCC 759
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 757
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
for use of the premises in question for any purpose other than A
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 B
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. C
(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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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
H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 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.
B
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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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 (non-
industrial) or any non-residential purpose.
G 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
H
Delhi and other bodies.
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 759
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
Mr. K.C. Naik, Member Secretary and Officiating Chairman A
of the Central Ground Water Board is present. He has been
requested to give us the status of ground water level in 20 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
B
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 C
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 D
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 E
including on public land is stopped with immediate effect beyond
the existing building and other bye-laws 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 F
that the orders of this Court and the applicable bye-laws 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. G
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.
H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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.
C List the matter on 15th May, 2018.”
(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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 761
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
Engineer / Equivalent Officer of respective zones of the various A
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
B
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 C
public streets. This 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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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
H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 Burari, Vishwas Nagar (EDMC), Kishangarh, South Zone (SDMC),
B 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
C
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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 763
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
had been appointed. The power of the Monitoring Committee could not A
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 B
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 C
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.
D
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.”
E
(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 F
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 G
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. H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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.
C 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
D 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
E 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.
F 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
G
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
H Commissioner, Nazafgarh Zone, SDMC, inspected the area behind
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 765
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
Sector 7 Dwarka Sub-city on 30.10.2018 and noticed major A
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.
B
Let the SDMC explain as to why they have not taken any
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.
C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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…….
H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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…..
B
61. ……Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of 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,
C 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….’’
D 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 non-conforming areas of Delhi. Requisite directions were
issued for closure or relocation of industrial units non-confirming with
E 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
F 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
G 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. 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:
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 767
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
REPORT NO.1 A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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: E
“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
F
establishments in residential premises. Certain suggestions were made
with respect to roads measuring 80 ft. wide and above, mixed land use
and payment of 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 G
20. Taking into consideration the above factual position, the
Monitoring Committee recommends the Hon’ble Supreme Court
kindly to consider to direct:
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 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
C 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
D 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 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.”
F REPORT NO.3
47. Report No.3 dated 23.5.2006 is again for sealing the
“commercial 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
G Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006. Some explanations are also
in the report concerning the de-sealing 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
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 769
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
mentioned in Para 2 such as automobile showrooms, Automobile A
workshops, Branded showrooms, call centers, coaching institutes, business
offices, building materials, go-downs, 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,
B
cybercafé, barber shop, chemist shops, etc. The report further states
about “prohibited commercial activities in residential areas,” such as
banquet halls, storage, go-downs, 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 C
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 D
area earmarked for a 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 E
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 F
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 G
encroached public land even on the roads of 80’ and above in
Madhu Vihar. The Monitoring Committee visited Madhu Vihar on
19 th 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
H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A entire commercial area has again been photographed. The
photographs now taken on 19th September 2006 are enclosed.
Development Notification, dated 7 th September, 2006, the
Government of NCT of Delhi had notified such streets/stretches
(Number not Indicated) by way of a Notification No.149, dated
15 th September, 2006. It had further been stated that the
B
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-
C 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 in 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
D
and marked as Annexure ‘C’.
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
E 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
F 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,
G 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
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 771
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
operations are being done in areas/roads which herewith and A
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
B
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 C
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
D
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 E
Delhi.”
REPORT NO.6
51. In Report No.6 dated 22.9.2006 by the Monitoring Committee,
the following facts have been mentioned:
F
“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 G
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.”
H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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;
C 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
D 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
E 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 Report No.1. The report states meeting with the
Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and sealing programme in unauthorized
F 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
G 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
H Committee:
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 773
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
“2. The Monitoring Committee brings it to the kind notice of the A
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; B
(c) Prohibited commercial activities in residential and Mixed land
use areas mentioned in para 15.6.2 of Master Plan Delhi-2021;
(d) Commercial activities in basements in residential areas;
(e) Commercial establishments on roads other than the 2183 roads C
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); D
(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
E
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 sealed in terms of this F
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.”
G
REPORT NO.34
56. Report No.34 dated 9.4.2017 ‘CAPTION’ is as Report No.1.
Non-availability of the police force was required to carry out sealing
operation in the Report.
H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 “Mixed-Use Regulations” and
“Special Area Regulations” as per the MPD-2021. Regulation No.16.2
of the MPD-2021 was referred to in the report. It was also pointed out
B 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 MPD-
C 2021 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
D “commercial activities” also.
REPORT NO.43
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”
E and “commercial activities” registered. The report further states regarding
go-downs in rural areas and “encroachment” of Raj Vidya Kender upon
the “public land”.
REPORT NO.46
F 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
G
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
H as under:
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 775
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
“In view of the foregoing, the Monitoring Committee submits that A
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) B
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:
“The MCD has already been informed by the Monitoring
Committee that industrial units in residential areas do not fall under C
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
D
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 (MPD-2021), in its true spirit, all “commercial activities in
E
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 F
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 G
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:
H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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).
C
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
D (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.”
E
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 “de-sealing” some of the
F 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.
G 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
H Delhi High Court and progress on disposal of appeals before the Tribunals.
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 777
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
The details of de-sealing of properties in the unauthorized colony, village A
& 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 de-notify 140 Roads in Shahdara North, Rohini,
Central, South, and West Zones resurveyed. Violations of the orders
dated 3.1.2012 and 30.4.2013 by various commercial establishments were
B
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 C
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 D
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.” E
REPORT NO.104
66. Report No.104 dated 30.10.2017 deals with the “conversion
charges” regarding “mixed use land”, de-notification of 140 roads,
“unauthorized construction” on “public and Government land” and F
“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.
G
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:
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A “The Monitoring Committee has finalized its plan to carry out 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.”
B
REPORT NO.111
68. In Report No.111 dated 7.2.2018 concerning E-5A, Hauz Khaz
Market, New Delhi, it was submitted that the same falls under Shops-
cum-Residential use, not as a Local Shopping Centre. The Report was
C 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
D 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
E
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 non-residential purposes.
REPORT NO.118
F 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 encroachment of DDA land at Sanjay Market, Mangolpur
Kalan in Rohini Zone and misuse of premises for commercial activities
G REPORT NO.119
72. Report No.119 dated 24.5.2018 is regarding the slow progress
of the “sealing operations” in Lajpat Nagar-IV and Amar Colony-
Refugee Colony, where large scale “encroachments” were made by
owners/ occupants on the “Government land”.
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 779
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
REPORT NO.120 A
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 B
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 “non- C
cooperation” 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 D
relating to “non-cooperation” of authorities in the sealing process as the
Master Plan (MPD-2021) 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 “non- E
cooperation” 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” F
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) G
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 Go-
downs” and storing places for “prohibited industries,”. In Kishangarh
area at South Zone, large scale unauthorized construction was reported H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B 78. In Report No.128 dated 5.9.2018 suggestions were made
regarding permanent de-sealing 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”.
C 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.
D 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
E 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.
F 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
G days.
The applicant may respond to these reports within four days
thereafter.”
82. Certain violations of MPD-2021 were also pointed out to be
complied with by the concerned authorities.
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 781
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
REPORT NO.144 A
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 B
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 C
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:
D
“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 E
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, F
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
G
deviation has been made in the existing structure. We request the
Committee to furnish its considered opinion in this regard before
this Court.
*** *** ***
H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 :-
B “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.”
C
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
D 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.
E 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.”
F
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
G 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.
85. It is apparent from the various orders passed by this Court
from time to time and from the various reports of the Monitoring
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 783
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
Committee that it was never authorized by this Court to take action A
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
B
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 vis-à-vis 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 C
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 D
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.
E
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 F
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:
G
“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.”
H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A (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
B 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.
C 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
D their rights.”
(emphasis supplied)
(c) In T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member, (2006) 8
SCC 502, the Court observed:
E “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.
F 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
G 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
H 6
(2002) 4 SCC 134
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 785
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
consideration keeping in view the future need, the State and the A
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.
B
* * *
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 C
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, D
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,
E
which reads as follows:
“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 F
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 G
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 H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C 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.)
D 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 taken the view
that even in cases of directory requirements, substantial compliance
with such provision would be necessary.”
E
(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
F 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
G Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 705, it was held:
7
(2008) 1 SCC 728
8
(2005) 7 SCC 627
9
Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors.(2007) 8
SCC 705.
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 787
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
“57. The Act being regulatory in nature as by reason thereof the A
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
B
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 C
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) D
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
Act, and on the final town-planning scheme being sanctioned, by
statutory operation the title of the various owners is readjusted E
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 F
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:
G
“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
10
(2003) 7 SCC 628
11
(2004) 1 SCC 391
12
(2004) 2 SCC 747 H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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 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
F 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
G
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
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 789
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
ESTABLISHMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES” makes it A
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
MPD-2021.
B
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 it acted under some confusion created by the letter. Be that C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 Report No.149 be de-sealed, 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
H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.
A 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.
B Issue notice in IA No.64993 of 2020.
Divya Pandey Directions issued.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Monitoring Committee"Sign in to search