{"id":25151,"date":"2000-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000"},"modified":"2016-12-28T12:52:58","modified_gmt":"2016-12-28T07:22:58","slug":"poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000","title":{"rendered":"Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & … on 27 July, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & … on 27 July, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: S N Variava<\/div>\n
Bench: V.N. Khare, J, S.N. Variava. J.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPOONAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/07\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nV.N.  Khare, J & S.N.  VAriava.\t J.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
S.  N.\tVariava, J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
This  Civil  Appeal is against the Judgment dated  29th\t January,
\n1999 passed by the High Court of Delhi.\t Briefly stated the facts
\nare  as\t follows:   One\t Swatantra  Co-operative  House\t Building
\nSociety\t (hereinafter called ‘the Society’) had initially applied
\nfor  sanction  of a layout plan.  The Standing Committee  of  The
\nMunicipal Corporation of Delhi had sanctioned that layout plan by
\na Resolution dated 1st October, 1958.  That layout plan consisted
\nof  98\tplots.\t However,  by mistake it  was  mentioned  in  the
\nResolution  that there were 108 plots.\tThe layout plan which had
\nbeen  sanctioned  had irregular boundaries, as a result of  which
\nthere  was  no proper approach road to Plots Nos.  1,2, 10-15  of
\nBlock-B\t and  Plots  Nos.   18-25  of  Block-E.\t  Therefore,  the
\nResolution  of\t1958  prohibited any building activities  on  the
\nabove\tmentioned  plots.   Thereafter\t the  Society,\twith  the
\npermission  of\tthe  Municipal\t Corporation  of  Delhi,  started
\nnegotiations with their neighbour i.e.\tthe Central Road Research
\nInstitute,  to\tstraighten  out the boundaries.\t As a  result  of
\nthese  negotiations  the  boundaries  of  the  Society\tcould  be
\nstraightened  out.  In straightening out the boundaries Plot Nos.
\nE-25  and  C-23 went to the shares of the Central  Road\t Research
\nInstitute.   Thus, these two plots ceased to exist.  The  Society
\nthen submitted a revised layout plan to the Municipal Corporation
\nof  Delhi  and\tasked for permission to exchange lands\twith  the
\nCentral\t Road  Research Institute in order to straighten out  the
\nboundaries.  The Municipal Corporation by its Resolution No.  158
\ndated 8th May, 1964 permitted exchange of land and sanctioned the
\nrevised\t layout plan but still prohibited building activities  on
\nPlots  Nos.  1,2 and 10 to 15 of Block-B and 18 to 25 of Block-E.
\nWe have seen the revised layout plan which had been submitted for
\napproval at this stage.\t It is clear from the revised layout plan
\nthat  Plot No.\tE-25 no longer existed and that there was no plot
\nE-25  (new).  Thus, it is clear that Plot No.  E-25 was mentioned
\nin the Resolution by mistake.  The reference to Plot No.  E-25 in
\nthis  Resolution  clearly  cannot be to any plot by  number  E-25
\n(New)  because at this stage no new plots had been carved out  by
\nthe  Society.  The Society then constructed roads and applied for
\npermission  to\tallow building activities on all the plots.   The
\nMunicipal  Corporation of Delhi by Resolution No.  588 dated 25th
\nAugust, 1965 permitted building activities on Plots Nos.  1,2, 10
\nto 15 in Block-B and Plots Nos.\t 18 to 25 in Block-E.  The layout
\nplan  which  should  be\t accompanying this  Resolution\thas  been
\nmisplaced  in the records of the Municipal Corporation.\t  However
\nadmittedly  the\t permission to build was restricted to\t98  plots
\nonly.\tIn the meantime, taking advantage of the fact that in the
\nResolution of 1958 the number of plots had been mentioned as 108,
\ncarved out additional plots.  The Society issued a Circular dated
\n21st  July,  1965.   That Circular set out that the  Society  had
\nexchanged  irregular pieces of land on the boundary of the colony
\nwith  the  Central Road Research Institute as a result\tof  which
\nirregular  pieces of land had disappeared and that as a result of
\nthis  exchange\tsome  more regular plots were being  carved  out.
\nThis  Circular made it clear that a revised layout plan for these
\nnew plots would have to be submitted to the Municipal Corporation
\nof  Delhi for sanction and allotment would only be conditional on
\nsanction  of  the layout plan being received from  the\tMunicipal
\nCorporation  of\t Delhi.\t The Circular also made it clear that  in
\ncase  the  Municipal  Corporation of Delhi rejected  the  revised
\nlayout\tplan  or passed it with modifications, the allottees  who
\nwould  be  allotted  these new plots, would get a refund  of  the
\ndeposits after deduction of expenses.  The Circular made it clear
\nthat  only  those  persons  who\t  accepted  this  conditions  and
\nstipulations should apply for allotment of the plots.  The mother
\nof  the\t Appellant  accepted  these conditions\tand  applied  for
\nallotment  of  a  plot.\t She gave an undertaking to  the  Society
\ndated  22nd  September,\t 1965  stating\t that  she  accepted  the
\nconditions  and\t stipulations set out in the Circular dated  21st
\nJuly, 1965 for the conditional allotment of a plot in her favour.
\nThe undertaking also mentioned that she had chosen Plot No.  E-25
\n(new)  for “conditional allotment”.  The mother of the\tAppellant
\nwas  allotted  by  the Society plot bearing E-25  (New),  Kalindi
\nColony,\t by an Agreement dated 7th October, 1965.  The\tAgreement
\nprovides  as  follows:\t” WHEREAS THE ‘Vendor Society’\tvide  its
\nCircular  dated 21.7.1965 offered for sale to its members,  plots
\nof lands, situate in the residential colony known as ‘Kalindi’ in
\nthe  village  Kilokri,\tRing  Road,   New  Delhi,  on  the  clear
\nunderstanding that the revised layout plan of these plots has not
\nbeen  sanctioned  so far, by the Municipal Corporation of  Delhi,
\nand  that the intending purchasers should be prepared to take the
\nrisk  that in case the Municipal Corporation of Delhi  ultimately
\nrejects\t the revised layout plan or passes it with  modification,
\nthe intending purchaser is agreeable to take back his money after
\nthe deduction of expenses entailed in this regard;\n<\/p>\n
AND  WHEREAS subject to the conditions and stipulations contained
\nin  the\t aforesaid Circular dated 21.7.1965, the  Vendor  Society
\nundertook  to  sell  to\t the Vendee ALL THAT  freehold\tplot  No.
\n25(New)\t Category II Group B measuring 399.93 sq.  yds.\t  Situate
\nin  Kalindi  Colony  in\t the village Kilokri,  within  the  Union
\nTerritory of Delhi belonging to and owned by the Society and more
\nfully described in the Schedule annexed to this deed.”\n<\/p>\n
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx<\/p>\n
“7.   That  the Vendee further agrees that in case the\tMunicipal
\nCorporation of Delhi rejects the revised layout plan or passes it
\nwith  modifications,  the  Vendee will be entitled  only  to  the
\nrefund\tof his money after deduction of expenses entailed in this
\nregard\tor  will  accept the plot as modified  by  the\tMunicipal
\nCorporation.\n<\/p>\n
It  must  be mentioned that the Society carved out 11  additional
\nplots  to  bring the total number of plots to 108.   The  Society
\nsold the additional plots to various people (including the mother
\nof  the\t Appellant).  All agreements entered into at  this  stage
\nwere  conditional agreements i.e.  that they were subject to  the
\nrevised layout plan being sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation
\nof Delhi.  We have seen the plan annexed to the Agreement entered
\ninto  with Appellant’s mother.\tIt shows that old plots E-25  and
\nC-23 are no longer there and that over and above the 96 old plots
\nthere  are 11 additional plots.\t The Society again applied to the
\nMunicipal Corporation of Delhi for sanctioning the revised layout
\nplan which now included these 11 additional plots.  The Municipal
\nCorporation  of\t Delhi\tby  its Resolution No.\t 796  dated  14th
\nNovember,  1968\t rejected  the revised layout plan  and\t did  not
\npermit\tadditional  plots.  It was clarified to the Society  that
\nwhat  had  been approved by the Resolution of 1958 were\t only  98
\nplots  and  not 108 plots.  The Society, therefore, by\ta  letter
\ndated  18th July, 1969 informed the mother of the Appellant  that
\nrevised\t  layout  plan\thad  been   rejected  by  the\tMunicipal
\nCorporation  of Delhi and that even though the Society was making
\nfresh  efforts to get the layout sanctioned, she may apply to the
\nSociety\t for  getting refund of the cost of the plot paid to  the
\nSociety,  if  she  so  desired.\t  The  mother  of  the\tAppellant
\naddressed  a letter dated 24th July, 1969 to the Society, through
\nher husband (who is an Advocate).  The letter states that she was
\nnot  interested\t in  getting  the refund of  money  and\t is  only
\ninterested in getting the plot which was allotted to her.  In the
\nletter it is stated that she believes that the Society would make
\nsincere\t efforts  in the matter and utilize all the resources  to
\nget  the layout plan sanctioned.  Thus, it is to be seen that the
\nmother\tof  the Appellant does not claim that her Plot No.   E-25
\n(new)  is one of the plots on which building activity had already
\nbeen  sanctioned  by Resolution 588 dt.\t 25th August, 1965.   The
\nmother of the Appellant does not claim that her plot is not a new
\nplot.\tThe mother of the Appellant does not claim that her  Plot
\nNo.   E-25  (New) is in substitution of the old Plot  E-25.   The
\nSociety\t  thereafter  pursued  the   matter  with  the\tMunicipal
\nCorporation of Delhi in order to try and get the additional plots
\nsanctioned.   The  Municipal Corporation of Delhi again\t rejected
\nthe  proposal by a Resolution dated 7th August, 1973.  Thus,  the
\nrevised\t layout\t plan containing the additional plots  was  never
\naccepted  or  sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation  of  Delhi.
\nThe  Society  then applied to the Municipal Corporation of  Delhi
\npointing  out that the original Resolution of 1958 sanctioned  98
\nplots.\t  The  Society\tpointed\t out   that,  due  to  change  in
\nboundaries,  two  plots viz.  E-25 and C-23 had ceased\tto  exist
\nand,  therefore, in their place two new plots bearing Nos.   C-35
\nand  C-36  should be permitted.\t The Society claimed  that  plots
\nbearing\t Nos.  C-35 and C-36 were substitutes for Plot Nos.  E-25
\nand  C-23.  The Municipal Corporation of Delhi by its  Resolution
\ndated  29th January, 1976 permitted carving out of plots C-35 and
\nC-36  in  place of old Plots Nos.  E-25 and C-23.  This\t sanction
\ngranted\t by the Municipal Corporation to carve out new Plots Nos.
\nC-35  and  C-36, in place of old Plots Nos.  C-23 and  E-25,  has
\nnever  been  challenged by anybody, including the mother  of  the
\nAppellant.  This Resolution shows that in place of old plots C-23
\nand  E-25  the new plots were C-35 and C-36.  The mother  of  the
\nAppellant  died in 1977.  The Appellant claims that her\t mother’s
\nplot has come to her share.  The Appellant does nothing from 1977
\ntill  1991.   On  21st January, 1991 the  Appellant  submitted\ta
\nbuilding  plan for approval in respect of a building on Plot  No.
\nE-25  (new).  On 7th February, 1991 the Municipal Corporation  of
\nDelhi  asked  the  Appellant  to supply\t certain  documents  i.e.
\nownership  documents,  relevant\t land\ttax  receipts,\tdocuments
\nregarding  payment of charges etc.  The Appellant by letter dated
\n18th March, 1991 forwarded the documents and also stated that the
\nPlot  No.   E-25  (new) was one of the plots  on  which\t building
\nactivity  had  been  approved by Resolution No.\t 588  dated  25th
\nAugust,\t 1965.\t The  Appellant\t received   no\treply  from   the
\nCorporation  till  1st\tAugust,\t 1991.\tOn 1st\tAugust\t1991  the
\nMunicipal  Corporation of Delhi rejected the building plan on the
\nground that Plot No.  E-25 (new) was not a part of the sanctioned
\nlayout.\t  The  Appellant  filed an Appeal  before  the\tAppellate
\nTribunal.   The grounds urged by her in the Appeal were,  amongst
\nothers,\t that  Plot No.\t E-25 (new) was a part of the  sanctioned
\nlayout and that building activity had been permitted on that plot
\nby  Resolution\tNo.  588 dated 25th August, 1965.  The\tAppellant
\nalso  contended that as no reply had been received within 60 days
\nthere  was  a  deemed  sanction by virtue of  the  provisions  of
\nSection\t 337  of  the Municipal Corporation Act.  By  a\t reasoned
\nOrder  dated 17th July, 1992, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the
\nAppeal\tholding\t that Plot No.\tE-25 (new) was not a part of  the
\napproved  layout plan.\tThe Appellant then filed an Appeal  under
\nSection\t 347-D before the Administrator, i.e.  the Lt.\tGovernor.
\nThe Lt.\t Governor by an Order dated 6th January, 1994 allowed the
\nAppeal.\t  The  Lt.  Governor held that there was deemed\t approval
\nunder  Section\t337  of the Municipal Corporation Act.\t The  Lt.
\nGovernor also held that Plot No.  E-25 (new) was in place of plot
\nNo.   E-25  (old) and it, therefore, formed part of  the  revised
\nlayout\tplan.  The Municipal Corporation of Delhi then filed Writ
\nPetition  bearing  No.\t 1460 of 1994 before the  High\tCourt  of
\nDelhi.\t By  the impugned Judgment dated 29th January,\t1999  the
\nHigh  Court  agreed with the Lt.  Governor that there was  deemed
\nsanction.  However, the High Court held that Plot No.  E-25 (new)
\ndid  not  form\tpart of the revised layout plan\t which\thad  been
\nsanctioned  by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and  therefore,
\nno  relief  could have been granted by the Administrator  to  the
\nAppellant  (herein).   The  High  Court\t  held\tthat  to   permit
\nconstruction  activity would be contrary to Section 337(2) of the
\nMunicipal  Corporation\tAct which provided that no  person  could
\nerect  a  building and execute work so as to convene any  of  the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Act or other law or any bye-law.\tThe  High
\nCourt  held  that  this necessarily meant that in cases\t where\ta
\nlayout\tplan  was  necessary and there was no layout  plan,  then
\nconstruction  activity could not be carried out even though there
\nmay  have been deemed sanction by virtue of Section 337(1) of the
\nMunicipal  Corporation Act.  It is this Judgement which has  been
\nassailed before us.  Mr.  Shanti Bhushan has taken us through the
\nJudgment of the Administrator as well as the Judgment of the High
\nCourt.\t He has supported the Judgment of the Administrator.   He
\nhas  also  taken  us  through  the  various  Resolutions  of  the
\nMunicipal  Corporation of Delhi, particularly Resolution No.  588
\ndt.   25th  August, 1965.  He has placed heavy reliance\t on  this
\nResolution  and\t submitted  that  by  this  Resolution\t building
\nactivity  was permitted on Plot No.  E-25.  He submitted that the
\nlayout\tplan  annexed to this Resolution would\tclearly\t indicate
\nthat  on  this date Plot No.  E-25 (new) existed.   He\tsubmitted
\nthat  the Corporation as well as the Society are suppressing this
\nlayout\tplan  as it would support the case of the Appellant.   He
\npointed\t various  letters exchanged between the Society\t and  the
\nMunicipal   Corporation\t of  Delhi   and\/or  the  Town\t Planning
\nDepartment.   He  pointed out that all these spoke  about  layout
\nplans.\t He submitted that these plans are also being suppressed.
\nHe  submitted that an adverse inference must be drawn against the
\nCorporation  and it must be held that Plot No.\tE-25 (new) is  in
\nplace  of  old plot No.\t E-25 and that the permission  to  build,
\nwhich had been granted by the Resolution No.  588 of 25th August,
\n1965,  also included permission to build on Plot No.  E-25 (new).
\nWe  are unable to accept the submissions of Mr.\t Shanti\t Bhushan.
\nTo  be seen that Resolution No 588 dt.\t25th August 1965 did  not
\nsanction  a  revised  layout plan.  The revised layout\tplan  was
\nsanctioned  by\tResolution  No.\t 158 dt.  18th\tMay  1964.   This
\nshowed\tall plots with numbers as they then existed.  Undoubtedly
\na  layout  plan will have accompanied Resolution No.   588  dated
\n25th  August,  1965  and that plan is missing.\tHowever,  in  our
\nview,  no  adverse inference can be drawn against the Society  or
\nthe Corporation because there is sufficient material on record to
\nshow  that  Plot  No.  E-25 (new) is not a part\t of  the  revised
\nlayout\tplan which was sanctioned in 1964.  It must be seen  that
\nby  the\t Resolution  No.   158\tof  1958  layout  plan\thad  been
\nsanctioned  for 98 plots.  By mistake in the Resolution 108 plots
\nwere  mentioned.  It is an admitted position that there were only
\n98  plots  in  the  sanctioned layout plan.  It\t is  an\t admitted
\nposition  that\tout of these 98 plots, plot Nos.  E-25\tand  C-23
\nwent  to the share of the Central Road Research Institute at  the
\ntime  when the boundaries were exchanged between the Society  and
\nthe Institute.\tAfter the exchange of boundaries a revised layout
\nplan was sanctioned by the Corporation by its Resolution No.  158
\nof  8th May, 1964.  The layout plan annexed to this Resolution is
\navailable  in  the record.  This layout plan clearly  shows  that
\nthere  were the 96 plots remaining with the Society.  This layout
\nplan  clearly shows that at this stage there is no plot E-25  old
\nor  new.  Yet this Resolution makes mention of Plot No.\t E-25 and
\nstates\tthat  there cannot be any construction on  this,  amongst
\nother,\tplots.\tThus, it is clear that the Resolution by  mistake
\nis  merely  repeating  the  number  of\tplots  from  the  earlier
\nresolution without it being having realised that now there was no
\nplot  No.   E-25.  Resolution No.  588 dt.  25th August\t 1965  is
\nmerely\trepeating the numbers as were mentioned in Resolution No.
\n158  dt.18th  May  1964.  Thus it is clear that\t the  mistake  in
\nResolution  No.\t  158 is carried forward to Resolution No.   588.
\nThat  plot No.\tE-25 has been mentioned by mistake in  Resolution
\nNo.   588  is further clear from the fact that in 1971, when  the
\nSociety applied for changing the location of one plot, i.e.  Plot
\nNo.   16-B,  it\t sent  a  copy of the  revised\tlayout\tplan,  as
\nsanctioned,   to  the  Municipal   Corporation\tof  Delhi.    The
\nCorporation  permitted the change of location of Plot No.   16-B.
\nThe  sanctioned\t revised layout plan which has been submitted  to
\nthe Municipal Corporation of Delhi at this time is on record.  To
\nbe  remembered\tthat  by now Society had already carved\t out  the
\nadditional  plots  and had sold them to various parties.  By  now
\nthe  Municipal\tCorporation had refused permission to  carve  out
\nmore  plots.   Thus  what had been sent by the\tSociety\t was  the
\nrevised\t layout\t plan  which had been sanctioned in 1964  and  on
\nbasis  of which permission to construct had been granted in 1965.
\nIf  the\t Appellants  plot E-25 (new) existed it would  have  been
\nshown  in this layout plan.  This plan shows that in the  revised
\nlayout\tplan  there  was  no plot E-25 (new).  It  must\t also  be
\nremembered that on 18th July, 1969 the Society had written to the
\nmother of the Appellant pointing out that the revised layout plan
\nshowing\t the additional plots had been rejected by the\tMunicipal
\nCorporation of Delhi.  If plot E-25 (new) was part of the revised
\nlayout\tplan  such  a letter would not have been written  by  the
\nSociety\t to  the mother of the Appellant.  The reply sent by  the
\nmother\tof  the\t Appellant  also shows that  the  mother  of  the
\nAppellant  did not consider the plot allotted to her, i.e.   Plot
\nNo.   E-25  (new),  to be in exchange for Plot No.   E-25  (old).
\nWhat  is also important is that admittedly neither the mother nor
\nthe  Appellant were owners of old Plot No.  E-25.  That plot  had
\nceased\tto  exist  much prior to the  Appellant’s  mother  having
\nallotted  Plot No.  E-25 (new).\t The Society, prior to\tallotting
\nthis  plot  to the Appellant’s mother, had by the Circular  dated
\n21st  July,  1965  made it very clear that after  the  change  of
\nboundaries some more plots may be available and that allotment of
\nthese  plots  would only be conditional.  The Appellant’s  mother
\nhad  given  an undertaking dated 22nd September,  1965\taccepting
\nconditional allotment of Plot No.  E- 25 (new).\t She then entered
\ninto  an  Agreement which is an conditional agreement as set  out
\nhereinabove.   The allotment to her was conditional on a  revised
\nlayout\tplan  containing additional plots being sanctioned.   The
\nMunicipal  Corporation\tof  Delhi  refused  sanction.\tThis  was
\nintimated  to Appellants mother in 1969.  In 1969 the  Appellants
\nmother\tconsidered  the\t allotment  of\tplot  E-25  (new)  to  be
\nconditional  and  subject  to  the   revised  layout  plan  being
\nsanctioned  by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.  Thus, at  all
\nstages the Appellant’s mother knew and accepted the fact that her
\nplot was one of the new plots for which sanction would have to be
\nobtained from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and that if such
\nsanction  was  not  obtained she would have no\tright  except  to
\nreceive back the moneys paid to the Society.  When it was pointed
\nto  Mr.\t  Shanti Bhushan that the Appellant’s mother had  entered
\ninto  a conditional agreement and that the Appellant, who  merely
\nsteps  into  the  shoes of her mother, could claim no  higher  or
\nbetter\trights.\t He submitted that all Sale Deeds executed by the
\nSociety\t were conditional sale deeds.  Mr.  Shanti Bhushan showed
\nto  Court  a number of Sale Deeds and showed that all Sale  Deeds
\nexecuted  by  the Society were conditional.  However, it must  be
\nremembered  that the Society had carved out 11 new plots and  had
\nentered\t into conditional agreements with all persons who  wanted
\nallotment  of  those new plots.\t Those were the agreements  which
\nMr.   Shanti Bhushan was showing to Court.  Mr.\t Rohtagi  pointed
\nout  to\t Court that in respect of plots which were not new  plots
\nthe   Society  had  entered  into   Agreements\twhich  were   not
\nconditional  agreements.   He  pointed out that\t the  father  and
\nsister\tof  the\t Appellant  (i.e.  the husband\tand  daughter  of
\nAppellant’s  mother) had also been allotted plots which were part
\nof  the revised layout plan as sanctioned in 1964.  Mr.\t  Rohtagi
\npointed\t  out\tthat  those   agreements  were\tnot   conditional
\nagreements.   Mr.   Rohtagi submitted that the statement made  by
\nMr.   Shanti  Bhushan  across the bar, that all\t agreements  were
\nconditional agreements was not a correct statement.  Mr.  Rohtagi
\nis  correct.   Court  has seen that members  of\t the  Appellant’s
\nfamily\thad  themselves\t entered into agreements which\twere  not
\nconditional agreements.\t On a query from Court Appellant, who was
\npresent\t in  Court,  confirmed\tthat her father\t and  sister  had
\nentered into agreements which were not conditional.  This made it
\nvery  clear  that the Appellant’s mother and even  the\tAppellant
\nwere well aware that Plot No.  E-25 (new) was not in substitution
\nof the old Plot No.  E-25 and that Plot No.  E-25 (new) was a new
\nplot  which could only be allotted provided sanction was accorded
\nby the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.\tIn our view, Mr.  Rohtagi
\nwas  also  right  when he submitted that the layout plan  of  the
\nSociety\t could only have 98 plots.  He correctly pointed out that
\nin  exchange  for old plots Nos.  E-25 and C-23 (which\thad  gone
\naway  to  the  Central\tRoad Research  Institute)  the\tMunicipal
\nCorporation  of\t Delhi had by its Resolution dated 29th\t January,
\n1976 permitted the Society to carve out Plot Nos.  C-35 and C-36.
\nHe  submitted, and in our view correctly, that if anybody had any
\ngrievance  to  the effect that Plot No.\t E-25 (new)  should  have
\nbeen  the  plot\t in exchange of the old E-25,  then  a\tcomplaint
\nshould\thave  been  made  at that stage and the\t request  of  the
\nSociety\t and the decision of the Municipal Corporation to  permit
\nplot  Nos.   C-35  and C-36 should have been challenged\t at  that
\nstage.\t He  points out that the Resolution dated  29th\t January,
\n1976 and the carving out of plots Nos.\tC-35 and C-36 in place of
\nPlots  Nos.  E-25 and C-23 has never been challenged by\t anybody.
\nHe submits that admittedly there can be only 98 and the Appellant
\ncannot ask for building activity to be permitted on an additional
\nplot,  which would make it 99 plots.  He also points out, and  in
\nour  view  correctly, that the allottees or owners of Plots  Nos.
\nC-35  and  C-36\t have  not been made parties  to  any  appeal  or
\nlitigation  undertaken by the Appellant and that the sanction  of
\nthose  plots  by  the  Municipal  Corporation  has  not\t been  in
\nchallenge  at any stage.  In our view, from the above it is clear
\nthat  in 1958 a layout containing 98 plots was sanctioned.  There
\nis  no sanction for more than 98 plots.\t Including plots C-35 and
\nC-36  there  are already existing 98 plots in the  Society.   The
\nMunicipal  Corporation of Delhi cannot be directed to create  one
\nmore  plot.   What  the\t Appellant, in\teffect,\t is  claiming  is
\ndirections  to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to sanction  an
\nadditional plot as Plot No.  E-25 (new).  The right of the mother
\nof  the\t Appellant and\/or the Appellant, if one existed,  was  to
\nchallenge,  sanction  of plots C-35 and\/or C-36.  This has  never
\nbeen  done.   Clarified\t that this Court is not saying\tthat  the
\nAppellant  or  her mother have a right to challenge  sanction  of
\nplots C-35 and\/or C-36.\t Under these circumstances, we are of the
\nview  that  the High court was absolutely right in coming to  the
\nconclusion  that  Plot\tNo.   E-25  (new)  is  not  part  of  the
\nsanctioned layout plan and that there can be no building activity
\nin  the\t absence  of a sanctioned layout plan.\t To  permit  such
\nbuilding activity would clearly be in violation of Section 337(1)
\nof  the Municipal Corporation Act.  Under these circumstances, we
\nsee  no reason to interfere.  The Appeal stands dismissed.  There
\nwill be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & … on 27 July, 2000 Author: S N Variava Bench: V.N. Khare, J, S.N. Variava. J. PETITIONER: POONAM Vs. RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/07\/2000 BENCH: V.N. Khare, J & S.N. VAriava. J. JUDGMENT: S. N. Variava, J. Leave […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPoonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 27 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 27 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-28T07:22:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & … on 27 July, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T07:22:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3990,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000\",\"name\":\"Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 27 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T07:22:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & … on 27 July, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 27 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 27 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-28T07:22:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & … on 27 July, 2000","datePublished":"2000-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T07:22:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000"},"wordCount":3990,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000","name":"Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 27 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T07:22:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-july-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Poonam vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & … on 27 July, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25151","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25151\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}