Shahdara Chotta Bazar Vyapar Sangthan (Regd.) & Ors vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr

$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 26 February, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 7069/2015
SHAHDARA CHOTTA BAZAR VYAPAR SANGTHAN (REGD.)
& ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ravish Kumar Goyal, Mr.
Aashray Singh, Mr. Vinit Kumar, Mr.
Muneeb Ahmed and Mr. Nayan,
Advocates.
versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Chopra, standing counsel
for MCD with Mr. Neeraj Kumar and
Ms. Khushi, Advocates for R-1/MCD.
MR. Sanjay Katyal, standing counsel
for DDA with Ms. Chand Chopra, Mr.
Piyush Vyas and Mr. Nitish Kumar
Danda, Advocates for R-2/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that
‘Chotta Bazar’, ‘Bara Bazar’, ‘Anaj Mandi’, ‘Farsh Bazar’ (hereinafter
‘Bazars’ ) , part of Shahdara town, fall within the commercial category in
Master Plan for Delhi, 1962 (hereinafter ‘MPD, 1962’) and hence, the shop
owners therein are not liable to pay conversion charges.
2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7069/2015 Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:44:08

follows:
2.1. The petitioners carry on commercial activities from shops located in
Bazars, which form part of Shahdara Town, Delhi. The petitioner no.1 is the
association of the traders who operate in ‘Chotta Bazar’ , Shahdara, whereas
the petitioners no.2 and 3 are individual shopkeepers in ‘Bara Bazar’ ,
Shahdara.
2.2. The shops in the Bazars are being run much prior to 1962 for complete
commercial use. However, before 1962 there was no master plan for Delhi,
therefore, there was no use (commercial/residential) prescribed by the
respondents for different areas in Delhi.
2.3. In 1962, the respondent no.2/Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
made the MPD 1962. As per the MPD, 1962, under Chapter II – Zoning
Regulations, at Serial No. IV (Commercial and Retail), a list of “already built-
up commercial areas” was provided. At serial number 19 of the said list,
“Shahdara Town” is expressly included.
th
2.4. The respondent no.1/MCD issued notices dated 5 November 2014 and
th
10 November 2014 to the petitioners no.2 and 3 respectively, demanding
conversion charges for their respective shops on the premise that the premises
were being used for commercial purposes.
2.5. The demand of conversion charges by the respondent no.1/MCD from
the traders of the said Bazars , was duly objected by the petitioners as being
unlawful and unjustified, as conversion charges can only be demanded from
the premises that are put to a different use than prescribed by the Master Plan.
However, the same was rejected by the respondent no.1/MCD.
2.6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioners filed the present writ
petition.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7069/2015 Page 2 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:44:08

th
3. Earlier, the present writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20
July 2016 with directions to the petitioners to approach the respondent no.1
individually and plead their case before the concerned respondents along with
their requisite documents.
4. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application, being C.M.
43040/2016, for recall of the aforesaid order. The said application was
st
disposed of vide order dated 21 November, 2016 on the basis of the
interpretation of para 5.1 of the MPD, 1962 as has been advocated by the
respondents. The operative part of the said judgment is set out below:
“The submission of the learned counsel for petitioners on this score is that
the documentary proof has to be sought for from a party only if the first
two contingencies i.e. if it is not established that the shop/residential area
was not commercial prior to 1962; that it was not in a residential area,
only if these two categories are not met with; the third contingency shall
be resorted to i.e. the asking of documentary proof from a party.
This Court is wholly in disagreement with this submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Clause 5.1 has to be read as a wholesome
clause. The wholesome and holistic reading of this clause clearly
establishes that the documentary proof is required even if the
shop/commercial establishment was shown as a commercial area in MPD
1962; this is also to establish that the shop in question was in fact a
commercial user. This application seeking a recall of the order dated
20.07.2016 is without merit. It is dismissed with costs quantified at
Rs.5000/-.”
5. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioners by way of an
th
LPA, being LPA 287/2017, which was allowed by the Division Bench on 29
st
August 2017. The impugned order dated 21 November, 2016 was set aside
and the matter was remanded back. The relevant paragraphs from the order
passed by the Division Bench are set out below:
“6. This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the possible conflicting
interpretation on the plain meaning of clause- 5.1 of MPD- 2021, the learned
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7069/2015 Page 3 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:44:08

Single Judge should re-examine the matter in the light of the parties'
contentions on this aspect, having regard to the rival position indicated in the
affidavits and inter se responses of the EDMC and DDA.
7. In these circumstances, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The
matter is remitted for further consideration and decision on merits by learned
Single Judge. The parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge on
th th
12 September, 2017. The Interim order made on 16 May, 2017 shall hereby
continue and bind the parties till the date of disposal of the writ petition. All
rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.”
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the area from where the petitioners
operate is covered under the MPD, 1962 (Sr. no.19), providing for the list of
already built-up commercial areas and hence the petitioners are not liable to
pay conversion charges. He further submits that in terms of clause 5.1 of the
MPD-2021, commercial use has been permitted in MPD-1962. Therefore, no
conversion charges would be payable.
7. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the DDA (Fixation of
Charges for Mixed Use and Commercial Use of Premises) Regulations, 2006,
wherein it is specifically provided that conversion charges would be payable
only in respect of residential premises which are being used for non-
residential activities.
8. The respondent no.2/DDA, in its counter affidavit, has admitted that
the area of Bazars is part of the Shahdara Town and the same is listed in the
MPD-1962 as an already built-up commercial area.
9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1/MCD and
respondent no.2/DDA submit that the petitioner is misreading para 5.1 of
MPD-2021. It is submitted that de hors the fact that the petitioners are
operating from an area where commercial use was allowed in terms of MPD-
1962, the petitioners would have to produce documentary proof to show that
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7069/2015 Page 4 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:44:08

they were doing commercial use prior to 1962.
10. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
11. In essence, the dispute revolves around the interpretation of para 5.1 of
MPD-2021. For the sake of convenience, the same is set out below:
12. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that there are three separate
and disjunctive categories of commercial use which are permitted in terms of
the said clause, namely:
i. residential areas and streets that were declared as commercial
areas/streets in MPD-1962.
ii. residential areas and streets where commercial use was allowed in
MPD 1962.
iii. where commercial activity was existing prior to 1962 in which case the
petitioners are required to produce documentary proof thereof.
13. Per contra , on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the
aforesaid clause has to be read as a whole and even if the petitioners were
declared as commercial areas or where the commercial use was permitted in
the MPD-1962, the petitioners would have to produce documentary proof of
commercial use prior to 1962.
14. It is an undisputed position that in terms of MPD-1962, ‘Shahdara
Town’ is in the list of already built-up commercial areas at serial number 19.
In this regard, reference may be made to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7069/2015 Page 5 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:44:08

affidavit filed by the respondent no.2/DDA which are set out below:
“4. It is submitted that as per the available record the area of Chotta
bazaar, Bada Bazaar, Anaj Mandi, Farsh Bazaar is part of the Shahdara
area. As per serial no.19 of master plan of Delhi (MPD) 1962, Shahdra
Town is listed as already build-up commercial area.
5. It is submitted that as per the provision at para-5. 1 of the MPD-202 1
the residential areas and streets/ stretches earlier declared as commercial
areas/streets or where commercial use was allowed in MPD-1962 shall
continue such use at least to the extent as permissible in MPD-1962.
Commercial activity existing from prior to 1962 in residential areas is also
permitted subject to documentary proof thereof”
th
15. Another Coordinate Bench of this court vide judgment dated 14
August, 2015 in W.P.(C) 7737/2015 titled Delhi Yarn Merchants
Association v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation had taken a view that
para 5.1 of MPD, 2021 provides for three categories of residential
areas/streets where commercial use is permissible. The relevant extracts from
the said judgment are set out below:
“10. From page 43 of the paper book, being the extract of MPD-1962, it
is not clear whether the subject area was declared as commercial or
commercial use was allowed therein in MPD-1962, within the meaning of
Clause 5.1 of MPD-2021. It prima facie appears that Clause 5.1 provides
for three categories of residential areas / streets firstly, residential areas
/streets / stretches “earlier” declared as commercial, secondly,
residential areas / streets / stretches where commercial activity was
allowed in MPD-1962, which are permitted to continue without showing
any documents and thirdly residential areas, which were neither
declared commercial nor was commercial activity permitted therein in
MPD-1962 but where commercial activity was nevertheless carried on
from prior to 1962. It is further prima facie appears that the MPD-2021
permits commercial activity to continue in the first two categories of
residential areas but with respect to the third category permits commercial
activity to continue only on documentary proof of commercial activity
continuing since prior to 1962 being furnished.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7069/2015 Page 6 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:44:08

11. It follows, that if the subject area was declared commercial at any time
or if commercial activity was permitted therein in MPD-1962, then
commercial activity can be continued therein without paying any charges
as claimed by respondent NrDMC. However if not, then, unless
commercial use since prior to 1962 is established on basis of documents,
to continue commercial activity, commercialisation charges will have to
be paid.”
16. I am in complete agreement with the aforesaid interpretation of para
5.1 of the MPD, 2021. In my considered view, the three categories mentioned
in para 5.1 are separate and disjunctive and cannot be read in a holistic
manner as contended by the respondents. Documents evidencing prior use are
required to be furnished only in respect of the third category, where the
areas/streets have not been declared as commercial or where commercial
activity was not allowed in the MPD 1962. Once the area/street has been
declared ‘commercial’ or where the commercial activity was allowed in MPD,
1962, there cannot be any further requirement for a party to furnish documents
to show commercial use prior to 1962.
17. This interpretation also finds favour from the DDA Regulations, 2006.
Regulation 3 of the DDA Regulations, 2006 is set out below:
18. It is clear from a reading of the aforesaid Regulation that conversion
charges can only be demanded where residential premises are being used for
non-residential activity in accordance with mixed-use regulations contained
in the Master Plan of Delhi. In the present case, as is evident from MPD-1962,
the area in question has been declared to be a commercial area and therefore,
would not fall within the ambit of mixed use.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7069/2015 Page 7 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:44:08

19. In light of the aforesaid interpretation of para 5.1 of MPD, 2021, the
present writ petition has to be allowed.
20. Accordingly, the respondents cannot demand any conversion charges
from persons doing commercial activity in the ‘Chotta Bazar’, ‘Bara Bazar’,
‘Anaj Mandi’, ‘Farsh Bazar’, which are a part of Shahdara Town, in terms of
MPD-1962. Hence, the demand for conversion charges raised by the
respondent no.1/MCD on any of the shops which are part of the aforesaid
Bazars is hereby quashed.
AMIT BANSAL, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2026
Rzu
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7069/2015 Page 8 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:44:08