AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. No.,"Plot Size (in
sq.m)",Minimum setbacks (in meters),,,
,,Front,Rear,Side (1),Side (2)
1.,Below 100,0,0,0,0
2.,"Above 100
and
upto 250",3,0,0,0
3.,"Above 250
and
upto 500",3,3,3,0
4.,"Above 500
and
upto 2000",6,3,3,3
5.,"Above 2000
and
upto 10,000",9,6,6,6
6.,"Above
10,000",15,9,9,9
S. No.,"Plot Size (in
sq.m)",Minimum setbacks (in meters),,,
,,Front,Rear,Side (1),Side (2)
1.,Below 100,0,0,0,0
2.,"Above 100
and
upto 250",3,0,0,0
3.,"Above 250
and
upto 500",3,3,3,0
4.,"Above 500
and
upto 2000",6,3,3,3
5.,"Above 2000
and
upto 10,000",9,6,6,6
6.,"Above
10,000",15,9,9,9
said public notice is Ex. D3W1/P1. The MCD issued letter Ex. D3W1/2 regarding regularization of the property on 29.03.2007.,,,,,
It is further the contention of the Respondent that Ld. Trial Court also rightly observed that Plaintiff/Appellant failed to prove as to how the flow of,,,,,
air and light has been affected by aforesaid construction, and thus the Appeal, being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.",,,,,
Having considered the aforesaid submissions, it is apparent that the parties are not at dispute with regard to extent of construction and the",,,,,
applicability of relevant Bye-Laws. The only question raised by the Appellant is that Respondents could not have covered the setback area of 3,,,,,
meters on side-1 and the MCD could not have regularized the said unauthorized construction.,,,,,
Before considering the construction with regard to challenge to Bye-Laws and the correctness of the regularization done by the MCD, it would be",,,,,
necessary in my view, to consider as to whether Appellant/Plaintiff was able to establish in the first place that he was in fact aggrieved by the act of",,,,,
the Respondents of raising the aforesaid construction.,,,,,
Appellant/Plaintiff has also filed site plan Ex. PW2/B wherein his property i.e. property bearing No. A-1/32, Janak Puri, New Delhi is indicated in",,,,,
green colour and the adjoining property belonging to Respondent No. 3, 4, 6 and 7 is indicated in red colour. It is noteworthy that during the entire",,,,,
length of trial, the Plaintiff/Appellant failed to show as to whether there is any opening of any door or window of his property towards the side of the",,,,,
property of the Respondents or that due to the construction of the boundary wall by the Respondents, the air and light cannot now reach his property",,,,,
or that his property has become dark and un-useable.,,,,,
On the contrary, the site plan Ex. PW2/B filed by the Plaintiff himself clearly shows that Plaintiff has left an open space on his plot towards the",,,,,
side property of the Respondents. Undoubtedly, the said open space has been left only for the purpose of free flow of air and light to his property.",,,,,
However, as discussed above, the present Appellant failed to prove that his right to flow of air and light was invaded or affected by raising of the",,,,,
wall by the Respondent, in any manner. It must be borne in mind that the Plaintiff/Appellant filed the present suit contending inter alia that it is his right",,,,,
to flow of light and air to his property which is affected by the construction raised by the above named Respondents, which contention he failed to",,,,,
prove, as discussed herein above.",,,,,
In so far as the question of regularization is concerned, Plaintiff's own witness namely PW7 Sh. V. K. Bagga deposed in his cross-examination",,,,,
that setback prescribed in MP-2021 are to be followed. He further deposed that for plots ranging from 250 to 750 sq. meters, the maximum ground",,,,,
coverage prescribed in the master plan is 75% and if the ground coverage is not achieved then the setbacks of the preceding category may be,,,,,
followed.,,,,,
Ld. Trial Court after having considered the evidence on record rightly concluded that there is no evidence to establish that regularization granted,,,,,
by the MCD was not in accordance with rules and procedure or that it was in contravention of MP-2021. Ld. Trial Court also considered the,,,,,
testimony of PW9 Sh. Naveen Garg, who proved copy of licence granted to Sh. Q. L. Dua who issued structural suitability certificate in respect of",,,,,
suit property. It is submitted by the Respondents that Sh. Q. L. Dua neither signed nor submitted regularization plan and has only granted structural,,,,,
certificate to the licence. Ex. PW1/9 shows that there is no bar for issuance of structural certificate by the said structural engineer. The letter Ex.,,,,,
PW7/1 dated 26.05.2006 relied upon by the Appellant does not came to the aid of the Appellant, inasmuch as that information was given prior to come",,,,,
into force of the building bye-laws MP-2021 and PW7 Sh. V. K. Bagga himself deposed that Defendant can merge the garage block with the main,,,,,
building as per clause 4.4.3.†(underlining added),,,,,
In view of the above discussion I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment of the courts below. No substantial question of law arises.,,,,,
Dismissed.,,,,,