M N BHARDWAJ Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri P.N. Bhardwaj, the father of the presentpetitioners was originally allotted leasehold rights of plot of land measuring800 sq. yds. bearing no./215, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The lesseeconstructed a single-storeyed house comprising of six rooms, two garages andtwo-rooms set above in due course of time. Shri P.N. Bhardwaj has sinceexpired andn his place, the present petitioners have become the jointperpetual lessees. They have filed the present petition under Section 482 ofCr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing theinitiation of criminal proceedings by the respondent-Delhi DevelopmentAuthority under Sections 14 and 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

(2.) Their case in brief is that sometime in the month of December, 1953,a portion of the house comprising of three rooms and two garages was letout for running a school in the name and style of Central City College. Aftersometime, the petitioners raised further construction on the said plot and letout a portion of the building to the State Bank of India in December, 1983.The premises are being used for commercial purpose. The filing of thecomplaint against the petitioners as well as the Stale Bank of India isabsolutely without jurisdiction inasmuch as there has been no violation of theprovisions of Section 14 read with sections 29(2) of the Delhi DevelopmentAct. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondent-DDA havenot framed any regulations as envisaged under the Master Plan and, therefore,the continuation of commercial use in the premises from December, 1953is absolutely lawful. Even under the Zonal Development Plan of the area,the commercial activity can be allowed to continue.

(3.) In any case, the offence under Section 14 of the Delhi DevelopmentAct is not a continuing offence and the present complaint of the D.D.A.isabsolutely barred by limitation inasmuch as the respondent had the knowledgeof the commercial user since long. Further more, the present complaint has notbeen instituted within a period of six months of the knowledge of the nonconforming user.