Supreme Court of India
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONERversusBHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN (DEAD) THR. LRS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 1324
- Decided
- 6 November 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B PARDIWALA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that owners of residential property on mixed‑use streets cannot be compelled to convert the ground floor to commercial use; they may opt for mixed‑use but are entitled to a fully residential construction, and therefore the High Court’s dismissal of the appeal was correct.
Summary
The respondents owned an 85‑year‑old dilapidated house on Ansari Road and applied in 2010 to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) to dismantle it and rebuild a new residential dwelling. After the corporation failed to act, the respondents obtained a deemed sanction of their plans from the MCD Tribunal under Section 347A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The SDMC appealed, but the Additional District Judge, the Delhi High Court, and subsequently a Letters Patent Appeal all dismissed the corporation’s challenge. The corporation contended that the Master Plan 2021 and a 2006 notification required the ground floor of any new construction on the street to be used for commercial purposes, arguing that the respondents could not be allowed a fully residential building. The Supreme Court held that owners are not compelled to convert the ground floor to commercial use; the notification merely permits mixed‑use at the owner’s option, and the High Court’s dismissal was correct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, the respondents were directed to file fresh residential plans, and the corporation was ordered to pay Rs 10,00,000 costs to the respondents.
Issues considered
- Whether the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Section 347A) authorises the corporation to deny a deemed sanction for reconstruction of a residential house on a mixed‑use street.
- Whether the Master Plan 2021 and the 2006 notification compel the owner to provide commercial use on the ground floor of a new building.
- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the corporation’s appeal against the deemed sanction.
- Whether the corporation’s insistence on commercial use amounts to harassment and a violation of the respondents’ property rights.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-South Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, thereby affirming the order passed by the District Judge granting plans put forward by the respondents for construction of a residential house. Headnotes† Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Deemed sanction of plan for construction of a residential house – Grant of – Respondent decided to dismantle 85 years old house which was in a
Subjects
South Delhi Municipal CorporationDeemed sanction of planConstruction of residential houseDilapidated conditionMixed land useGround floor commercialHarassmentCosts
Judgment
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 248 : 2025 INSC 1324
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner
v.
Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs.
(Civil Appeal No. 6077 of 2018)
06 November 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the
appeal filed by the appellant-South Delhi Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, thereby affirming the order passed
by the District Judge granting deemed sanction to the plans
put forward by the respondents for construction of a residential
house.
Headnotes†
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Deemed sanction
of plan for construction of a residential house – Grant of –
Respondent decided to dismantle 85 years old house which
was in a dilapidated condition and put up a new construction
to be utilised for their residence – Submission of plans before
the Municipal Corporation, however, no decision taken –
Application filed before the tribunal, and deemed sanction
of the plans granted – Thereafter, concurrent findings by the
courts below – Interference:
Held: No good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment by
the High Court – Single Judge very correctly held that the owners
cannot be compelled to convert the ground floor of their residential
accommodation to a commercial unit, rather, he may choose to do
so – Appellant cannot expect the respondents to put up construction
in a manner by which the ground portion would be for commercial
use, and the upper floor would be for residential purpose, and more
particularly, when he has a vested crystalised legal right to use it
for residential purpose for all times to come – Submission on behalf
of the appellant defies logic that the respondents may continue
* Author
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 249
South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner v.
Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs.
to reside in the dilapidated house, but if they want to put up new
construction, then it has to be commercial on the ground floor and
upper floor as residence – Even the notification, does not support
the case put forward by the appellant in any manner – With 15
years having passed by, they will have to incur huge expenditure
for putting up new construction – Photographs of the subject house
of the respondents show that it is in a dilapidated condition and any
time may collapse – In fact, the appellant should have expressed
concern about the safety and lives of the occupants of this house,
rather than objecting to sanctioning of their plans – This is nothing
short of harassment – Respondents to put forward fresh plans for
approval for construction of a house – Considering the arbitrary
and high-handed manner in which the appellant harassed the
respondents, cost of Rupees ten lakh to be paid to the respondents
by the appellant. [Paras 11, 13-20]
Case Law Cited
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. in I.A. No(s). 203615 &
218080 of 2024 and I.A. No. 210981 of 2025 in Writ Petition (C)
No. 4677 of 1985 – referred to.
List of Acts
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
List of Keywords
South Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner;
Deemed sanction of plan; Construction of residential house;
Dismantle 85 years old house; Dilapidated condition; Convert
ground floor of the residential accommodation to a commercial
unit; Harassment; Cost of Rupees ten lakh.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6077 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP No. 1497 of 2012
With
Civil Appeal No. 6078 of 2018
250 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Mohit Yadav, Arun Pratap Sngh Rajawat,
Ms. Vandana Sehgal.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv., Abhay Kumar, Abhay Jain, Shagun Ruhil,
Karan Chopra, Abhay Kumar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ.
1. These appeals arise from the judgments and orders passed by the
High Court of Delhi dated 11.05.2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1497
of 2012 and 01.06.2017 in Review Petition No. 217/2017 in W.P.(C)
No. 1497/2012 respectively by which the appeal filed by the appellant
herein, namely, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation through its
Commissioner came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the order
passed by the learned District Judge granting deemed sanction to
the plans which were put forward by the respondents herein before
the Corporation for construction of a residential house.
2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus:-
(I) The respondents herein before us have a residential house
of their ownership bearing No. 4752 and 4758 respectively
situated at 23, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. This house
is almost 85 years old and is in a dilapidated condition. In such
circumstances, the respondents decided to dismantle it and
put up new construction to be utilised for their residence. The
plans were accordingly prepared and put forward before the
appellant in the year 2010.
(II) It appears that no decision was taken by the authority
concerned on the sanctioning of the plans put forward by
the respondents. In such circumstances, the respondents
went before the Appellate Authority–MCD, which is a Tribunal
constituted under the provisions of Section 347A of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short “the Act”). The
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 251
South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner v.
Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs.
Tribunal allowed the application and granted deemed sanction
of the plans.
(III) Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal–MCD,
the appellant went in appeal before the Additional District Judge,
by way of Appeal No. 1/2011. The appeal filed by the appellant
herein came to be dismissed by the Court of the Additional
District Judge vide order dated 13.02.2012, thereby affirming
the order passed by the Tribunal.
(IV) Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Court of the
Additional District Judge, the appellant went before the High
Court by way of a writ petition. The writ petition also came to
be dismissed.
(V) We are informed that against the judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, a Letters Patent
Appeal was also filed, however, the same came to be dismissed
on the ground of being not maintainable.
(VI) The Special Leave Petition preferred against the order passed
in the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on
23.12.2016. Thereafter, the appellant preferred another Special
Leave Petition against the order of the Learned Single Judge
and obtained liberty to seek review of the order passed in Writ
Petition (C) No. 1497 of 2012. The said Review Petition came
to be dismissed on 01.06.2017.
3. In such circumstances, referred to above, appellant is here before
us with the present appeal.
4. Ms. Vandana Sehgal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
vehemently submitted that the High Court committed an egregious
error in passing the impugned judgment and order. According to her,
it is not permissible for the respondents to put up new construction
in the form of a new house. Although the present residential house
may be in a dilapidated condition, and it may be permissible for the
respondents to continue to reside in such a dilapidated house, yet
the law does not permit the respondents to dismantle the present
structure and put up a new house. According to her, the new bylaws
do not permit the respondents to dismantle the house and put up a
new structure. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the
construction has to be strictly in accordance with the Master Plan
252 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and sub-Zonal Plan respectively meant for the Ansari Road, Darya
Ganj. According to the learned counsel, even if the respondents
want to construct a new house, they are obliged in law to put up
a shop on the ground floor which should be commercial in nature
and thereafter, on the first floor or the second floor, they may make
their residence.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Paul, the learned Senior counsel appearing
for the respondents, while vehemently opposing this appeal, would
submit that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said
to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned
judgment and order. According to him, there are concurrent findings of
three authorities. To start with the Tribunal, the Court of the Additional
District Judge and thereafter the High Court in his favour. He would
submit that the ancestors of his client started residing in this house
sometime in 1940. He submitted that his clients are not in a sound
monetary condition to shift to any other place in Delhi. The only
option available with the respondents is to dismantle the present
house and put up a new RCC construction and use it exclusively
for residential purpose.
6. The learned senior counsel took us through the notification dated
15.09.2006 issued by the Urban Development Department,
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. He invited our
attention to clause 15.1 and clause 15.2 respectively. According to
him, this notification permits the occupant of a property situated in the
area in question to use it for mixed facility, in residential areas. He
would submit that his client does not intend to use the new premises
which he would like to construct for mixed use and he wants to use
it only for residential purpose.
7. The principal argument canvassed by the learned senior counsel
is that how can the appellant compel a person to make use of
his property for mixed purposes, i.e., commercial-cum-residential,
and more particularly, when the person wants to use it only for
residential purpose. According to him, the new provision in the
notification is an enabling provision, which permits the owner of
the property, and more particularly, those who want to use it for
mixed purpose.
8. In such circumstances, referred to above, he would submit that there
being no merit in this appeal, the same may be dismissed.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 253
South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner v.
Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs.
9. While dismissing the review petition, the Learned Single Judge of the
High Court noted, inter alia, that it was for the first time the SDMC
canvassed an argument in a review petition that the ground floor
would necessarily have to be used for commercial purpose. The
SDMC had earlier set up the case that the building plans submitted
by the respondent were deficient because the plans had failed to
provide for stilt parking on the ground floor, thus the insistence on
the use of the ground floor as a shopping outlet militates against
the case set up by the SDMC in the writ petition.
10. The learned Single Judge went on to observe:
“Secondly, the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 makes it amply
clear that the areas notified for mixed land use are to· be
used for commercial purposes to a limited extent. Shops
are permitted on plots abutting notified streets albeit only
on the ground floor and upto the maximum permissible
ground floor coverage. This does not imply that the owners
of residential property on notified streets are compelled to
develop the property in that manner and apply for change
of user. It is also relevant to mention that the change of
user for developing the properties for partly commercial
use on notified streets is permissible on payment of the
conversion charges.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. A bare perusal of the relevant circular dated 27.05.2009 makes it
clear that the learned Single Judge very correctly held that the owners
cannot be compelled to convert the ground floor of their residential
accommodation to a commercial unit, rather, he may choose to do
so. The circular reads thus:
“Circular
The following guidelines in consultation with the Technical
Committee of DDA and the Town Planning Department
of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are issued to all
concerned for processing applications/ cases for approval
of Building Plans on notified streets under mixed-use
regulations:
254 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
1. The Building Plans on notified commercial streets/roads
can be sanctioned for commercial use/partly commercial/
partly/residential/fully residential as per the choice of the
applicant.
xxx xxx xxx
4. Activities permitted on mixed use streets under mixed
use regulations in MPD-2021 / its amendments shall be
allowed in the case of plots abutting in mixed use streets
on -ground floor only and upper floors shall be for the
residential use.
5. One time conversion charges as per notification dated
22.06.2007 and as amended from time to time shall be
charged for the area being sanctioned for commercial use
on notified commercial streets.”
12. The same understanding may be gained from the observations
made in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and ors in I.A.
Nos. 203615 & 218080 of 2024 and I.A. No. 210981 of 2025 in Writ
Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985 respectively by Justice B.R. Gavai,
CJI, which are as follows:
“20. The learned Senior Counsel for the MCD further
enlightened us on the different categories of markets
across Delhi with reference to the Master Plans notified
for Delhi. The first Master Plan for Delhi was MPD-1962,
replaced by the 2nd Master Plan, MPD-2001 published
on 01.08.1990 and then the 3rd Master Plan, MPD-2021
which came into effect on 07.02.2007. We have from
the documents produced by the applicant himself, found
that the applicant has obtained a sanctioned plan for
construction only in the year 2005. The Master Plan for
2021 conceived the Community Centres (CC) as shopping
and business centres while the Local Shopping Centre
(LSC) and the Convenience Shopping Centre (CSC) would
cater to the day-to-day needs of the local population.
Certain areas developed prior to 1962 like Lajpat Nagar,
Rajouri Garden, Tilak Nagar, Kamla Nagar and others
which existed prior to MPD-1962 had consolidation of
commercial activities.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 255
South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner v.
Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs.
21. The LSCs were categorised into two categories, one
meant exclusively for commercial use and the other for
mixed use where commercial activity was allowed to be
carried out on the ground floor and residential activity
permitted on the upper floors. MPD-2021 designated
some of the shop-cum-residential complexes which were
earlier termed as ‘shop-cum-residence’ plots/shops as
Local Shopping Centres and permitted commercial use
of floors above the ground floor, subject to payment of
conversion charges. The former category of LSCs wherein
exclusively commercial activities were carried out, were
thus called planned LSCs while those in which conversion
of the ‘residential’ to ‘commercial’ was permitted were
called designated LSCs. New Rajinder Nagar in which
the applicant’s plot is situated has been notified as a pre-
1962 built up residential and rehabilitation colony. The
understanding of the applicant was also not otherwise
since the sanctioned plan produced along with the IA, as
applied for the applicant, clearly indicates the sanction of
residential areas on the upper floors.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. We also thought fit to put few questions to Mr. Rahul Verma, serving
as an Assistant Engineer with the appellant. The officer present
before us is attached with the Building Headquarters Department.
We enquired with the officer, what is the idea in imposing such a
restriction. According to him, since the entire Ansari Road, Dariya
Ganj, Delhi is now full of local shopping centres, each and every
residential house should be a shopping complex, if ultimately new
construction is to be put up. We were taken aback when we came
to know that the residential house of the respondents which is in
a very dilapidated condition is on a 300 square yard plot. This
residential house as noted above was constructed sometime in
1940. The land is said to have been purchased sometime in 1935
and construction of the house was completed sometime in 1940. We
are at our wits’ end to understand how does the appellant expect
the respondents to put up construction in a manner by which the
ground portion would be for commercial use, and the upper floor
would be for residential purpose, and more particularly, when he
256 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
has a vested crystalised legal right to use it for residential purpose
for all times to come.
14. The argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant defies logic
that the respondents may continue to reside in the dilapidated
house, but if they want to put up new construction, then it has to be
commercial on the ground floor and upper floor as residence. Even
the notification, which we have referred to above, does not support
the case put forward by the appellant in any manner.
15. We are at pains to note that this litigation is now almost 15 years old.
Had the permission being granted 15 years back, the respondents
would have been able to complete the construction within a particular
budget. With 15 years having passed by, they will have to incur huge
expenditure for putting up new construction.
16. We also looked into the photographs of the subject house of the
respondents. It is in a dilapidated condition and any time may collapse.
In fact, the appellant should have expressed concern about the
safety and lives of the occupants of this house, rather than objecting
to sanctioning of their plans. This is nothing short of harassment.
17. In such circumstances, referred to above, we see no good ground
to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court.
18. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
19. We permit the respondents to put forward fresh plans for approval.
The plans shall be for construction of a house. Once the plans are
submitted, the authority concerned shall sanction the same within a
period of four weeks from the date of presentation and grant necessary
permission to put up construction meant for residential purpose.
20. In the gross facts and circumstances of this case, and considering the
arbitrary and high-handed manner in which the appellant harassed
the respondents, we impose costs of Rs.10,00,000(Rupees ten lakh
only) to be paid to the respondents on or before 17.12.2025 without
fail. The payment towards costs shall be reported to us. It shall be
open for the respondents to put forward the very same plans which
were earlier approved by the High Court.
21. With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of.
22. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 257
South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner v.
Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6078 OF 2018
In view of the Order passed by us in Civil Appeal No. 6077 of 2018,
nothing remains in the connected appeal and the same is also
disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "South Delhi Municipal Corporation"Sign in to search