TEJ PRATAP SINGH Vs. NDMC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's grievance against the order of the Single Judge is that his challenge to the NDMC's action in retaining 6131.46 sq. ft. of land which is part of the appellant's property i.e. 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (hereafter called as "suit property") was rejected. The Single Judge was of the opinion that the NDMC's action is not arbitrary and that the property (to the extent above) could be retained.

(2.) Having regard to the order that this court proposes to make, a detailed discussion on facts is essential. The suit property was notified as a residential property. The appellant argues that though the property is residential in nature, it applied for constructing a commercial building seeking the benefit of the NDMC's prevailing scheme for that purpose. The appellant complained that at the time it approached NDMC for sanction, the latter imposed a further condition that the disputed portion i.e. 6131.46 sq. ft. ought to be kept open for its use and for the purpose of a public road i.e. road widening. The appellant engaged in correspondence with the NDMC to protest the continued use by the latter of the portion for parking purpose and ultimately approached this court. The NDMC's response in the writ proceedings was that the petitioner had consciously accepted the condition on which the commercial building was permitted and that since there was no change in circumstance, having secured the advantage that was sought, it could not claim that the continued use for NDMC purpose was without authority of law. In the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon Pt. Chet Ram Vashist vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi : 1995 SCC (1) 47 contending that under similar circumstances where the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had used private property, the court had directed that prevailing market price had to be paid for the time the lay out was sanctioned since the title continued to vest in the private owner.

(3.) The learned Single Judge set out the facts and thereafter by brief discussion dismissed the appellant's claim, stating as follows: