Corporate office use in a convenient shopping centre is permissible under MPD 2021.

The petitioner, a cooperative housing society, had developed residential land leased by the DDA and earmarked approximately 12,617.5 sq. ft. for a Convenient Shopping Centre (“CSC”) at Geetanjali Enclave.

The CSC was constructed around 1977 and its shops were auctioned for essential commercial activities.

In 2011, the petitioner alleged unauthorised construction, encroachment, and misuse of the CSC, particularly the use of the ground-floor premises by Respondent No. 5 as a corporate office rather than as a shop.

The petitioner had previously filed C.W.P. No. 1951/1997 raising substantially similar grievances concerning unauthorised construction and impermissible activities in and around the CSC.

That petition was disposed of on 20.03.2003 after the DDA stated that no factory or impermissible activity was operating in the CSC.

The petitioner’s subsequent application for revival of that petition was dismissed on 21.11.2012, the Division Bench holding that the grievance was already being considered in the present writ petition and that the petitioner could not seek to re-agitate the matter before another Bench.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable when substantially similar issues concerning the use, construction, and activities in the CSC had already been raised and dealt with in the earlier PIL.

Whether the use of the CSC premises as a corporate office was impermissible under the applicable Master Plan and allotment conditions.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to directions for removal of alleged unauthorised construction and encroachments or cancellation of the concerned allotment/lease.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in examining the legality of the alleged unauthorised construction and misuse.

It applied the principle that a party cannot re-agitate an issue that has already been raised and dealt with by the Court, particularly where an earlier proceeding concerning the same subject matter had been disposed of and a subsequent application for revival had been dismissed.

The Court relied on the statutory and planning framework under the MPD 2021, specifically Table 5.1, under which activities permissible in a CSC serving a population of approximately 5,000 over one hectare included retail shopping, local-level services, repair activities, offices, banks, ATMs, informal trade, and restaurants.

The Court also recognised the DDA’s responsibility for planned development and for ensuring compliance with the permissible use of premises.

The Court first held that the petitioner’s attempt to pursue the same controversy was misconceived.

The earlier PIL had addressed unauthorised construction and impermissible activities in the CSC, and the Division Bench had recorded the DDA’s statement that no unlawful industrial or other impermissible activity was being conducted.

The dismissal of the 2012 revival application further demonstrated that the petitioner could not use the present proceedings to circumvent the earlier adjudication or seek consideration of the matter by another Bench.

On merits, the Court accepted the DDA’s categorical position that office use was permissible under MPD 2021 and noted that an earlier DDA communication dated 17.10.1985 had also permitted commercial use, including use as a garment export office.

The inspection reports did not disclose unauthorised encroachment in the open spaces; the internal partition within the unit did not alter the fact that it was a single premises being used as an office.

Since an office/corporate office was a permissible activity in the CSC under MPD 2021, the alleged use by Respondent No. 5 did not justify the requested restraint or cancellation of allotment.

In any event, the use of the CSC premises as a corporate office was permissible under MPD 2021, and the DDA’s inspection did not establish unauthorised encroachment or construction warranting relief.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, along with the petitioner’s claims for removal of alleged encroachments, restraint against office use, and cancellation of the allotment/lease.