An allottee cannot unilaterally enclose an open parking space allotted as unenclosed.

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) allotted the appellant an open and unenclosed car parking space, CPS No. P-508, along with Flat No. E9-01, Sector E1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

The appellant sought permission to alter the parking space and subsequently erected a roofed tin shed enclosing it. He later claimed that the alteration had been “deemed approved” under Clause 2.19 of the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016 (UBBL).

The DDA issued a notice directing removal of the structure, which was demolished on 7 August 2024.

In June 2026, the appellant erected a partition wall between the entrance doors of his flat and the neighbouring flat. The DDA treated it as unauthorised construction on a common area and removed it after issuing notice.

The appellant’s writ petition resulted in a direction to the DDA to provide the sanctioned building plan and particulars of the common areas within four weeks. His applications for clarification and modification were dismissed, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the appellant could lawfully enclose an open and unenclosed car parking space allotted to him and convert it into a garage.

2. Whether the DDA was competent to issue notices and remove the unauthorised structures in the E1 Housing Pocket, Vasant Kunj, notwithstanding the appellant’s reliance on Sections 343 to 345A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

3. Whether the partition wall erected between the two flats could be maintained, either as an expansion-joint obstruction or as an appropriation of common area.

4. Whether alleged non-compliance with the Single Judge’s direction to furnish building plans and details of common areas justified interference in the appeal.

The Court applied Clause 1.4.80 of the UBBL, which recognises enclosed and unenclosed parking spaces but does not authorise an allottee to unilaterally change the nature of a space allotted as open and unenclosed.

It also considered Clause 2.19 of the UBBL concerning deemed approval where the sanctioning authority fails to communicate sanction or refusal within the prescribed period; the Court held that deemed approval cannot validate an act that could not lawfully have been sanctioned or confer a right to enclose an allotted open parking space.

Sections 343 to 345A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which regulate action against unauthorised construction within the MCD’s jurisdiction, were held inapplicable because the common areas of the housing pocket had not been handed over to the MCD and remained under the DDA’s control.

The Court further applied the principle that common areas and structural expansion joints cannot be appropriated or obstructed by an individual allottee.

The appellant’s allotment was specifically of an open and unenclosed parking space forming part of the common open area. By enclosing it with a roof, walls and a door, he altered its character and effectively converted it into a private garage.

Clause 1.4.80 merely defines the types of parking spaces; it does not permit an allottee to transform an open space into an enclosed one without competent authority’s approval.

The plea of deemed approval under Clause 2.19 failed because such deemed approval could not authorise an impermissible alteration of the allotment or validate appropriation of common area.

Since the E1 Housing Pocket had not been transferred to the MCD, the DDA retained control and responsibility over its common areas and was competent to issue the notices and remove the unauthorised structures.

The partition wall was also impermissible because, on the appellant’s own case, it obstructed a structural expansion joint, which was required to remain unobstructed; alternatively, the space between the flats constituted common area and could not be appropriated for his exclusive use.

Finally, any non-compliance with the direction to furnish plans and common-area particulars was to be pursued through enforcement proceedings, not by challenging an order that had granted the appellant that relief.

It held that the appellant could not enclose the open and unenclosed parking space or rely on deemed approval under Clause 2.19 of the UBBL.

The DDA was competent to remove the unauthorised structures because the relevant common areas remained under its control.

The partition wall was likewise impermissible as an obstruction of a structural expansion joint and, in any event, as an encroachment upon common area.

The appellant’s remedy for alleged non-compliance with the direction to supply building plans and common-area particulars was to seek enforcement of that direction. There was no order as to costs.