LAWS(DLH)-1986-11-16

M L KHERA Vs. STATE

Decided On November 21, 1986
M.L.KHERA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition Shri M. L. Khera has challenged his conviction under S. 29(2), Delhi Development Act (herein after referred to as the Act) and sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/- only or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months by the Courts below.

(2.) In order to appreciate the scope of this revision petition, it is relevant to keep in mind the admitted facts. On 18th Jan. 1980, Shri B. M. Aggarwal, P.W. 2, Junior Engineer of D.D.A. inspected building No. 21-A, North Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, and found that in one of the rooms on the ground floor an office of a property dealer under the name and style of "Khera Property Dealer" was functioning. This was a prohibited user of the building as per the Master Plan of Delhi. After obtaining necessary sanction from the Competent Authority, D.D.A. filed a complaint under S. 14 read with S.29(2) of the Act in the Court of the concerned Magistrate on 16th April, 1980.

(3.) In support of the complaint, three witnesses were examined. P.W. 1 Krishan Lal proved the resolution Ex.PW 1/1, which empowered the officer concerned to launch prosecution. P.W. 2 Shri B.M. Aggarwal inspected the building, prepared the report Ex.PW2/A and proved other relevant documents. According to P.W. 3 Saffeer Hussain, the building in question falls in zone G-10 and can be used only for residential purpose. The present petitioner in his defence took up the stand that in one room of the building, only professional service of property dealer akin to that of a doctor or a lawyer is being carried out. In fact, no commercial activity in the real sense is being undertaken. He further maintained that Municipal Corporation of Delhi had already allowed the petitioner such user by charging house tax of the property treating it as commercial. He also maintained that till the time and Zonal Development Plan is enforced, the question of its violation could not be alleged at all. In support of his contention, he examined one witness from the office of Municipal Corporation of Delhi.