Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1324
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6077 OF 2018
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(S)
THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
VERSUS
BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN (DEAD) THR. LRS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6078 OF 2018
O R D E R
J.B.PARDIWALA & 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.11.17
16:29:26 IST
Reason:
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
1
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 Tribunal allowed the
application and granted deemed sanction of the
plans.
2
(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
3
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 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.
4
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.
5
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.
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
6
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:
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.
7
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.
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
8
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
9
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.
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
10
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.
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
11
is also disposed of.
...................J.
[J.B.PARDIWALA]
...................J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
New Delhi
th
6 November, 2025.
12