Holding

Section 345A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act authorises the Municipal Commissioner to seal premises misused for commercial purposes, while the Delhi Development Act does not confer such sealing power for misuse.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the large‑scale conversion of residential premises to commercial use in Delhi and the failure of authorities to enforce building and land‑use laws. It held that the Constitution obliges the Court to protect fundamental rights and enforce the rule of law, especially when officials entrusted with enforcement are complicit. By interpreting the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the Court found that Section 345A empowers the Municipal Commissioner to seal premises misused for commercial purposes, even without a prior demolition order. Conversely, the Delhi Development Act does not grant the DDA power to seal for misuse, as misuse is not defined as ‘unauthorised development’. The Court issued detailed, phased directions for sealing major violators on main roads, publicising violations, disconnecting utilities, and holding officers accountable, while staying an ad‑hoc trade‑registration scheme. The petition and related appeals were disposed, with the Court retaining jurisdiction to issue further directions.

Issues considered

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s power under the DMC Act to seal premises misused for commercial purposes.
The Delhi Development Authority’s power under the Delhi Development Act to seal premises for misuse.
The appropriate procedural steps and phased implementation for stopping large‑scale residential misuse.
The applicability of the ‘polluter pays’ principle to owners and errant officers.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 32, s. Part IX-A
Delhi Development Act, 1957s. 12, s. 22-A, s. 30, s. 31, s. 31-A, s. 36
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957s. 312, s. 313, s. 314, s. 331, s. 336, s. 343, s. 344, s. 345A, s. 347, s. 349A

Subjects

Residential misuseCommercial conversionSealing of premisesDelhi Municipal Corporation ActDelhi Development AuthorityRule of lawEnvironmental protectionPolluter pays principleTown planningEnforcement of building regulations

Judgment

A M.C. MEHTA
v. "'
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 16, 2006

B [Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ. AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND
R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.]
• .
Constitution ofIndia-Articles 21 and 32-Blatant and large-scale misuse
of residential premises for commercial use in Delhi-lack of enforcement of
c building and land use laws and orders of Courts for their implementation--
Held, rule of law is the essence of democracy-It has to be preserved-Laws
have to be enforced-Supreme Court cannot remain a mute spectator when
misuse affects the environment and healthy living of the citizens-
Implementation of the law to stop blatant misuse of land cannot be delayed
D further--lt has to be stopped in a phased manner beginning with major
violators-- Beginning has to be made to stop misuse on main roads of 80 feet
width or more-Detailed directions issued-Rule of law-Role of Judiciary.

Constitution of lndia--Articles 32 and 21-Town planning-Misuse of
residential premises--Right of non-violator to compensation-Polluter pays
E principle-Blatant and large-scale misuse of residential premises for
commercial purposes in Delhi with the connivance of Government Officials-
Held, misuse has to be stopped-Violators and Government officers are
accountable for the hardship, inconvenience and suffering caused to residents
of the locality-It is necessary to identifY and take appropriate action against
officers responsible for violation of building and land use laws-Appropriate
F
directions for payment of compensation by violators and such officers and
exact manner of applicability of polluter pays principle would be issued after -.
the misuse is stopped.

Constitution of India-Part IX A-Delhi Municipal Corporation Act
G 1957-Section 349A-Power of Central Government to enact bye-laws for
building regulations--held, Town planning is now part of Constitutional
obligation and section 349A was inserted to give effect to that obligation--
Town planning.
~ .
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act-Section 312, 313, 336(2) and 347-
H 264
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O. I. 265
Land use-Planning laws laying down specific use of land-Held, use of land A
cannot be changed-Even Municipal Corporation of Delhi cannot accord
sanctio~ of erection of a commercial building if the notified land use is
residential-Provision for user may be regulatory but they are mandatory and
binding-None has any right, human or fundamental to violate the law with
immunity and claim any right to use a building for a purpose other than one B
authorized-Town planning-Delhi Master Plans 1962 and 2001.

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act-Section 345A, 343 and 344-Misuse
of premises-Power of Municipal Corporation of Delhi to seal-Held, MCD
is empowered uls 345.A to exercise power of sealing in case of misuse of any
premise-sealing can be resorted to at any time before or after making an
order of demolition uls 343 or 344-View of Delhi High Court reversed on C
this point.

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act-Section 331 and 345A-Building bye-
laws for the Union Territory of Delhi 1983-Bye-law nos. 2.17 and 2.85-
Held, conversion of user of premises come within the purview of "to erect a D
building" so as to attract sealing provision of s. 345A.

Delhi Development Act 1957-Section 12, 31A and 36-Misuse of
residential premises for commercial purposes-Power of DDA to seal-Held,
the DDA has power to seal the premises for unauthorized development uls
31A-lt has no power of sealing in case of misuse-Misuse does not come E
within the ambit of development.
Large scale flagrant violation of various laws including municipal
laws, master plan and other plans besides environmental laws throughout
Delhi have been engaging the attention of this court for a no. of years.
With a view to secure the implementation of laws and protect fundamental
rights of the citizens, repeated orders were passed from time to time. The F
court had to prioritize as to which violations were to be taken up first and
~·-\ then issue appropriate directions. Directions were issued in respect of
shifting of hazardous and extensive industries out of Delhi. Despite all these
orders, more and more violations were taking place. In the present
petition, the court has taken up the issue of large scale misuse of premises G
in residential areas for commercial use.
The question under consideration also is about the powers of MCD
and DDA to direct demolition and/or sealing of the properties being
misused.
Earlier a writ petition was filed by residents of a residential colony, H
j
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 2 S.C.R.

·A Gre~n Park Extension, in Delhi High Court, alleging misuse of residential
premises for commercial purposes and total inaction on the part of the ,...
authorities in stopping such misuse. A full bench of the High Court ca me
to the conclusion that neither under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act
nor under the DDAct, there was any power to seal property for itsI
misuse,
B inter alia, holding that the power of sealing of premises is drastic as by
reason of such sealing, a person could become homeless, thus, affecting
his human or fundamental rights and that power of sealing in relation to
misuse has hen intentionally excluded from the provisions of the two Acts.
This judgment is also under challenge before the court.

C Disposing of the petition, the court

HELD: 1.1. This court has a constitutional duty to protect the
fundamental rights of Indian citizens. When violators and/or abettors of
the violations are those, who have been entrusted by law with a duty of
protect these rights, the task becomes difficult and also requires urgent
D interven~ion by court so that the rule of law is preserved and people may
not lose faith in it finding violations at the hands of supposed implementers.
The problem is not of the absence of law, but of its implementation.
[271-A-B]

2.1. It is not in dispute that large numbers of residential premises
E are being misused for commercial purpose. The question is - can the MCD
stop such misuser by putting a seal on misused property? For dealing with
the question of power of MCD to seal the premises in case of misuser, it
is necessary to examine few provisions of the DMC Act. (274-D-E)

2.2. Chapter XVI of the DMC Act deals with building regulations
F and comprises Sections 330A to 349A. The definition of the words 'to erect
a building' is very pertinent for deciding the present question. Clauses (c),
(h) and U) of Section 331 bring in the concept of user of a building for
the purpose of definition of the expression 'to erect a building'. Under
clause (h), if any building not originally constructed for use as a stall, shop,
G warehouse etc. is converted for use as such, it would fall within the
expression 'to erect a building'. In respect of an area where the notified/
specified land use is residential sanction for erection of a commercial
building cannot be accorded, as is apparent from sub-section (2) of Section
336. Section 347 contains a specific prohibition for change of the use of
any land or building. A bare perusal of building bye - laws shows how
H relevant is the user, commercial or residential, and the large impact of
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O. I.. 267
~1 occupation load on various facilities including water, sanitation and A
drainage. 1275-E-F; 277-A-B; 282-A; 283-Ci

2.3. Keeping future needs in view, experts prepare Master Plans.
Perusal of the Delhi Master Plan, 1962 and 2001 shows what were plan
projections. At the time of planning, the experts in the field of town
planning, take into account various aspects, such as, healthy living, B
environment, lung space need, land use intensity, areas where the
j residential houses to be built and where the commercial buildings to be
'"' located, need of household industries etc. Provision for household
industries in residential areas does not mean converting residential houses
into commercial shops. It only means permitting activities of household
industry in a part of a residential property. Neither layout plan, nor the
c
building plan, can be sanctioned by MCD except in the manner and for
the purpose provided in the master Plan. If in the master plan, the land
use is residential, MCD cannot sanction the plan for any purpose other
'titian residential. The provision of user may be regulatory but all the same,
they are mandatory and binding. In fact, almost all the planning provisions D
are regulatory. The violations of the regulatory provisions on massive scale
>
. can result in plans becoming merely scraps of papers. That is the ground
reality in the capital of the country. None has any right, human or
funda1flental, to violate the law with immunity and claim any right to use
a building for a purpose other than authorized. 1283-D-E; H; 284-A-q
E
2.4. The provision of sealing as contained in Section 345A of the
DMC Act was inserted by Act 42of1984 with effect from 10th December,
I 985. One of the objects for the amendments, as stated in the Statement
of Objects and Reasons, is to contain massive conversion of residential
constructions into commercial complexes. A plain reading of section 345A F
-~\ shows that sealing can be resorted to at any time, before or after making
an order of demolition under Section 343 or under Section 344 in respect
of such erection being carried on or completed, for the purpose of carrying
out the provisions of the Act. In view of the clear language of Section 345A,
This Court is unable to sustain the view of the High Court that action
under Section 345A can be taken only when there exists order of G
demolition under Section 343 or an order under sub-section (I) of Section
).--~
344. It is clear from a conjoint reading of the definition of the expression
'to erect a building' in Section 331 and Section 345A that conversion of
user would come within the purview of the expression 'to erect a building'.
In this respect useful reference can also be made to Building Bye - Laws
H
268 SUPREME COliRT REPORrs 120061 2 S.C.R.

A for the Union Territory of Delhi, 1983, in particular Bye-Law Nos. 2.17
and 2.85, defining the expressions 'Conversion' and 'To Erect'
respectively. Having regard to these definitions if a Building/structure not
originally constructed for use as a shop, is put to use as a shop, such
conversion of use would come within the ambit of the expression 'to re-
B erect' and, consequently, within the ambit of the definition of the
expression 'to erect a building'. In view of the aforesaid, reversing the
impugned judgment of the High Court, it is held that under Section 345A
of the DMC Act, the Commissioner of MCD is empowered to exercise
power of sealing in case of misuser of any premises.
(278-C; 279-B; 284-D-G; 285-C-DJ
c 3. Section 31A of Delhi Development Act 1957 empowers ODA to
seal unauthorised development. If the misuser of the premises would come
within the ambit of unauthorised development, DOA would have pow<:!;
to seal the premises. On the other hand, if misuser does not come within
the ambit of 'unauthorised development', the power of sealing would be
D lacking. The scheme under the DD Act clearly seems to be that during
development it is the responsibility of ODA to demolish and seal any
premises if there is contravention. After the handing over of the .u:ea to
the local authority under Section 36, the power of demolition and/or sealing
is conferred on that authority. That local authority may be MCD or
E cantonment or any other authority depending upon the developed area
falling in the local limits of one or the other. The Act does not contemplate
that both DDA and the competent authority would have concurrent power
even after the local authority has assumed responsibility as provided in
Section 36. Unlike Section 331, there is no provision in the Delhi
Development Act to confer on the authority the power of sealing in case
F of misuse. Misuse does not come within the ambit of development.
(287-E-F; 288-D-G; 289-A-CJ

4.1. Now, reverting back to the task of implementation, despite its
difficulty, this Court cannot remain a mute spectator when the violations
also affect the environment and healthy living of law abiders. The enormity
G of the problem which, to a great extent, is the doing of the authorities
themselves, does not mean that a beginning should not be made to set
things right. If the entire misuse cannot be stopped at one point of time
because of its extensive nature, then it has to be stopped in a phased
manner, beginning with major violators. There has to be a will to do it.
H 1295-D-EJ
• M.C. MEHTA v. U.O. l.

4.2. Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of the High A
269

~, ' Court and this Court, the enforcement of the laws and the implementation
of the orders are utterly lacking. If the laws are not enforced and the
orders of the courts to enforce and implement the laws are ignored, the
result can only be total lawlessness. It is, therefore, necessary to identify
and take appropriate action against officers responsible for this state of
affairs. Such blatant misuse of properties at large scale cannot take place B
without connivance of the concerned officers. It is also a source of
corruption. Therefore, action is also necessary to check corruption,
nepotism and total apathy towards the rights of the citizens. Those who
own the properties that are misused have also implied responsibility
towards the hardship, inconvenience, suffering caused to the residents of c
the locality and injuries to third parties. It is, therefore, not only the
question of stopping the misuser but also making the owners at default
accountable for the injuries caused to others. Similar would also be the
accountability of errant officers as well sinte,primafacie, such large scale
misuse, in violation of laws, cannot take place without the active
connivance of the officers. It would be for the officers to show what D
effective steps were taken to stop the misuse. (298-F-H; 299-A-B)
;
+ 4.3. Rule of law is the essence of Democracy. It has to be preserved.
Laws have to be inforced. In the case in hand, the implementation and
inforcement of law to stop blatant misuse cannot be delayed further.
E
According to MCD, the major violation has ben determined in respect of
those roads where commercialization of the buildings is more than 50%.
According to it, the major violations in 12 zones are spread on 229 roads.
Roads on which there are major violations are, thus, known. In respect
of these, there is no need for any survey or individual notice. Beginning
must be made to stop misuse on main road~ of width of 80 ft. or more. F
The names of these roads can be published in newspapers and adequate
~-Ji
publicity given, granting violators some time to bring the user of property
in conformity with the permissible user, namely, for residential use if the
plans have ben sanctioned for construction of a residential house. In case
owner/user fails to do so, how, in which manner and from which date,
MCD will commence sealing operation shall be placed on record in the G
form of a.n affidavit of its Commissioner to be filed within two weeks. On
,.. " consideration of this affidavit, further directions would be issued including
constitution of a Monitoring Committee, if necessary. The issue of
accountability of officers and also the exact manner of applicability of
Polluter Pays Principle to owners and officers would be further taken up H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A after misuse is stopped at least on main roads. (300-H; 301-A-D] t

MC. Mehta v. Union of India, (20041 6 SCC 588; News Item AQFMY
v. Central Pollution Control Board, Writ Petition No. 725 of 1994, Order
dated 31st July, 2001; Ahuja Property Developers (P) Ltd v. MC.D., (1990)
42 Delhi Law Times 474; DDA v. Rajinder Mittal, (1991) 20 DRJ 65; ANZ
B Grindlays Bank v. The Commissioner, MC.D. and Ors., (1995) 34 DRJ 492
and Anil Kumar Khurana v. MCD, (1996) 36 DRJ 558, referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application No. 22 ' .
IN
c Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
WITH
IA Nos. 1816 & 1860 in WP (C) No. 4677/1985, C.A.Nos. 5413 &
D 8694 of 2002, SLP(C) Nos. 23145, 23220, 23896, 23934 of 2002, 7128/
2004, 23139/2002 & C.A. Nos. 608-611/2003.

B. Dutta, A.S.G., Ranjit Kumar, (A.C.) Ashwani Kumar, V.P. Singh T

Manmohan, M.C. Mehta-in-Persson, Ms. B. Vijaylakshmi Menon, Sanjiv Sen,
Praveen Swarup (N.P.), Sudhir Nand Raj Yog, Vishnu B. Saharya (for M/s.
E V.B. Sharya & Co.)., Vijay Panjwami, Mrs. Sheel Sethi, Vikas Sharma, Mrs.
Anil Katiyar, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Ajay Siwach, Sandeep
Sharma, T.V. George, Ashok Bhan, Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, S. Wasim A. Qadri,
Manish Jha, Ms. Bina Gupta, Mrs. Rakhi Ray, Ms. Inklee Barooah, Kamlendra
Mishra, Raj iv Kumar Dubey, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Arun Sinha, Varinder Kumar
F Sharma, B.K. Prasad, B.V.B. Das, Suresh Chandra Triparthy, Ms. Indu
Malhotra Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Rajan Narain, R.P. Sharma and Ms. ~.

Madhu Sikri for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ. In respect of large number of immoveable
properties throughout Delhi, flagrant violations of various laws including
Municipal Laws, Master Plan and other plans besides Environmental Laws
have been engaging the attention of this Court for number of years. With a
. ,
view to stcure the implementation of laws and protect fundamental rights of
the citizens, various orders were passed from time to time.
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O. l. [SABHARWAL, CJ.] 271
---( This Court has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental rights A
of Indian citizens. What happens when violators and/or abettors of the
violations are those, who have been entrusted by law with a duty to protect
these rights? The task becomes difficult and also requires urgent intervention
by court so that the rule of law is preserved and people may not Jose faith
in it finding violations at the hands of supposed implementers. The problem B
is not of the absence of law, but of Its implementation.

. ~ )'
Considering such large-scale flagrant violations, this Court had to
prioritize as to which violations may be taken up first and then issue appropriate
directions. In this view, at first instance, directions were issued in respect of
shifting of hazardous and noxious industries out of Delhi. Directions were c
also issued for shifting of heavy and large industries as also some extensive
industries. For shifting polluting industries had to be given top most priority.
Later, directions were issued for shifting of other extensive industries
considering the continued unauthorized use contrary to Master Plan and Zonal
Plan, by those industries as well as some other industries continuing in
residential/non-conforming areas.
D

1. On one hand repeated orders were made to seek implementation of the
+ laws and, on the other hand, simultaneously, more and more violations were
taking place. Detailed reference to earlier orders made from time to time, the
shifting stand of the authorities, various laws being violated, requirements of E
Town Planning and the constitutional obligations of the authorities, has been
made by this Court in the judgment dated 7th May, 2004 while dealing with
unauthorized industrial activity and issuing time bound directions for
compliance and appointing a Monitoring Committee with directions for filing
of periodical progress reports (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [2004] 6 SCC
F
588. The order dated 19th August, 2003 sets out various issues involved
~\ including the issue of misuse but, at that stage, the issue of unauthorized
industries was given priority and the directions in respect of shifting of
industries were issued. In a way, this judgment is in continuation of the
judgment dated 7th May, 2004 with the difference that now we have taken
up the issue of large scale misuse of residential premises for commercial use. G
With regard to commercial use of premises in residential areas, it has
been more than three years, i.e., 30th September, 2002 when the order was
made directing respondents to file reply. In fact, the question of misuse of
residential premises for commercial purposes was taken up even earlier as is H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A apparent from the orders dated 31st July, 2001 and 20th February, 2002. By
•
order dated 3 lst July, 2001 passed in Writ Petition No.725 of 1994 titled
News Item AQFMY v. Central Pollution Control Board, the Court directed
that :

"The MCD will also inform this Court in the affidavit to be filed as
B to why no requisite action has been taken for stopping the gross
misuse of buildings in the residential areas for commercial purposes
and in the construction of commercial buildings in residential areas
where only residential usage is permitted."

C Again on 20th February, 2002, the Order dated 31st July was reiterated
in the following terms :

"MCD is also directed to file within four weeks from today an affidavit
indicating as to what it intends to do for stopping the misuse of the
buildings in the residential areas which are being used for commercial
D purposes as has been directed by this Court's order dated 3 lst July,
200 I. If no affidavit is filed, the explanation in respect thereof should
be given to the Court by the Municipal Commissioner."
' ,.
The learned Amicus Curiae filed IA No.1860/04 referring to aforesaid ..
orders dated 31st July, 200 I, 20th February 2002, 30th September, 2002 and
E 19th August, 2003 and bringing to the notice of this Court a press release
dated 22nd July, 2004 issued by Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' for
short) declaring a scheme to facilitate registration of shops, establishments,
commercial establishments etc. in the non-conforming/residential areas by
granting ad hoc licences in respect of premises existing till 31st March, 2003.
p This shows the apathy of a municipal body, which is constituted, amongst
others, to ensure compliance of the laws. In this application, learned Amicus
Curiae sought stay of the press release and the scheme. By order dated 2nd
August, 2004, the press release and the ad hoc Trade Registration Scheme
were stayed by this Court.

G The question under consideration also is about the power of MCD and
Delhi Development Authority (ODA) to direct demolition and/or sealing of
the properties being misused.

Few residents of a residential colony by the name of Green Park
H Extension, making averments about large scale unauthorized constructions
--(
I '

M.C. MEHTA v. U.O. I. [SABHARWAL, CJ.] 273
. __,
,/
and stating that various letters written to the MCD complaining about the A
illegal and unauthorized constructions and misuser and consequent violation
of Master Plan etc. resulted in no action, filed in about October 1994, a writ
petition in Delhi High Court alleging how misuse of residential premises for
commercial purposes was taking place, citing specific instances and
complaining about total inaction on the part of the authorities in stopping
such misuse. According to them, the officers were, in fact, encouraging or
B
conniving with persons who were indulging in such misuse. The officers
' ,;: 1" failed to carryout their statutory duties in stopping such misuse. A writ of
mandamus was sought against the authorities directing them not to allow
illegal commercial user. Petitioners therein alleged that such misuser and acts
of omission and commission by the authorities was resulting in the environment c
in the residential colony being totally polluted and civic amenities jeopardised.

MCD, in reply, filed in April 1995, i.e., more than 10 years ago, admitted
the violations and said that show cause notices had been issued under the
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short, 'the DMC Act') and the
Corpiiration was doing its best in the matter. The same was the stand of D
DDA. All officers being directed to file affidavits reporting as to what action
had been taken, filed affidavits with reference to the properties of which
+ instances had been given, inter alia, stating that owners had been booked and
action was being taken. Similar affidavits were filed by both MCD and DDA.
In March 2000, MCD filed a status report giving particulars of approximately
663 properties in Green Park Main and 407 properties in Green Park Extension
E
stating that many properties were being used as commercial and others partly
commercial. When this was the position in a small colony, one can well
imagine the plight in manifold other residential colonies and of residents
living in those colonies in the capital city of Delhi.
F
. -~ By impugned judgment dated 3 lst May, 2002, disposing of the
aforenoted writ petition and other connected matters, a Full Bench of the
High Court came to the conclusion that neither under the DMC Act nor under
the Delhi Development Act, there was any power to seal property for its
misuse, inter alia, holding that the power of sealing of premises is drastic as
by reason of such sealing, a person could become homeless, thus, affecting G
his human or fundamental rights and that the power of sealing in relation to
,., "· misuse has been intentionally excluded from the provisions of two Acts.
Later, some other matters were also decided by the High Court following the
Full Bench decision. Those judgments are also under challenge.
H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A The judgment of the Full Bench is under challenge in Civil Appeal
No.5413 of2002 filed by the original writ petitioners/residents of Green Park
colony and Civil Appeal No.8694 of 2002 filed by the MCD.

The questions to be determined are :

B A. Whether MCD under the DMC Act has power to seal the premises
in case of its misuser?

B. Whether DDA, under the Delhi Development Act, has also similar
power of sealing or not?

C. Directions to be issued in respect of residential properties used
C illegally for commercial purposes.

In these matters, we are considering only the issue of misuser. We are
not considering the issue of unauthorized constructions.

Re : Question A Whether MCD under the DMC Act has power to
D seal premises in case of its misuser
It is not in dispute that large numbers of residential premises are being
misused for commercial purposes. The question is can the MCD stop such ..
misuser by putting a seal on misused property? For dealing with the question
of power of MCD to seal the premises in case of misuser, it is necessary to
E examine few provisions of the DMC Act. The expression 'building' is defined
in Section 2(3) of the DMC Act as a house, out-house, stable, latrine, urinal,
shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall) or any other structure, whether
of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material but does not include
any portabl_e shelter.
F
The expression 'land' as per Section 2(24) includes benefits to arise out
of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything
attached to the earth and rights created by law over any street.

Section 2(26) defines 'market' as under:
G
"Sec.2(26) - "market" includes any place where persons assemble for
the sale of, or for the purpose of exposing for sale, meat, fish, fruits,
vegetables, animals intended for human food or any other articles of
...
human food whatsoever, with or without the consent of the owner of
such place notwithstanding that there may be no common regulation
H for the concourse of buyers and sellers and whether or not any control
---4
I
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O. l. [SABHARWAL, CJ.] 275
is exercised over the business of, or the person frequeriting, the market A
i/ by the owner of the place or by any other person;"

Section 2(34) defines 'occupier' as under:

"Sec.2(34) "occupier" includes-

(a) any person who for the time being is paying or is liable to pay to
B
the owner the rent or any portion of the rent of the land or building
in respect of which such rent is paid or is payable;
'" ..l. 'f

(b) an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using his land or building;

(c) a rent-free tenant of any land or building; c
(d) a licensee in occupation of any land or building; and

(e) any person who is liable to pay to the owner damages for the use
and occupation of any land or buil'ding;"

Under Section 2(59) 'trade premises' means:
D

) "2(59) - "trade premises" means any premises used or intended to be
+ used for carrying on any trade or industry;"

Chapter XVI of the DMC Act deals with building regulations and
comprises Sections 330A to 349A. E

The definition of the expression 'building' shows that it is very wide
and encompasses any structure only excluding portable shelter with. which
we are not concerned. We are concerned with the building and its erection.

The definition of the words 'to erect a building' is very pertinent for F
.,--1 deciding the present question. The expression 'to erect a building' is defined
in Section 331 as under:

"Sec.331 Definition.-

In this Chapter, :mless the context otherwise requires, the expression G
"to erect a building" means-

(a) to erect a new building on any site whether previously built upon
or not;

H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A (b) to re-erect-

(i) any building of which more than one-half of the cubical
contents above the level of the plinth have been pulled down,
burnt or destroyed, or

(ii) any building of which more than one-half of the superficial
B area of the external walls above the level of the plinth has been
pulled down, or

(iii) any frame building of which more than half of the number
of the posts or beams in the external walls have b~cn pulled
down;
c
(c) to convert into a dwdling house any hmlding or any part of a
building not originally constructed for human habitation or, if
originally so constructed, subsequently appropriated for ~ny other
purpose;

D (d) to convert into more than one dwelling house a building originally
constructed as one dwelling housc only;

(e) to convert into a place ofreligious worship or into a sacred building
any place or building not originally constructed for such purpose; ..,.

E (t) to roof or cover an open space between walls or buildings to the
extent of the structure which is formed by the roofing or covering of
such space;

(g) to convert two or rr.Jre tenements in a building into a greater or
lesser numbers;
F (h) to convert into a stall, shop, warehouse or godown, stable, factory
or garage any building not originally constructed for use as such or ..
which was not so used before the change;

(i) to convert a building which when origmally constructed was legally
exempt from the operations of any building regulations contained in
G this Act or in any bye laws made thereunder or in any other law, into
a building which had it been originally erected in its converted form,
would have been subject to such building regulations;

0) to convert into or use as a dwdling house any building which has
been discontinued as or appropriated for any purpose other than, a
H
-~·
I

M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [SABHARWAL, CJ.) 277
dwelling house." A
-r Clauses (c), (h) and (j) are very significant. These clauses bring in the
concept of user of a building for the purpose of definition of the expression
'to erect a building'. Under clause (h), if any building not originally constructed
for use as a stall, shop, warehouse etc. is converted for use as such, it would
fall within the expression 'to erect a building'. B
In respect of an area where the notified/specified land use is residential,
--. _:;. -r sanction for erection of a commercial building cannot be accorded, as is
apparent from sub-section (2) of Section 336. Section 336 reads as under:

"Section 336. - Sanction or refusal of building or work.- c
(I) The Commissioner shall sanction the erection of a building or the
execution of a work unless such building or work would contravene
any of the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section or the provisions
of section 340.
D
(2) The grounds on which the sanction of a building .or work may be
refused shall be the following, namely:-
)

~
(a) that the building or work or the use of the site for the building
or work or any of the particulars comprised in the site plan,
ground plan, elevation, section or specifica-tion would contravene E
the provisions of any bye-law made in this behalf or of any other
law or rule, bye-law or order made under such other law;

(b) that the notice for sanction does not contain the particulars or
is not prepared in the manner required under the bye-laws made
in this behalf;
F
(c) that any information or documents required by the
.-1
Commissioner under this Act or any bye-laws made thereunder
has or have not been duly furnished;

(d) that in cases falling under section 312, lay-out plans have not
been sanctioned in accordance with section 313; G
(e) that the building or work would be an encroachment on
Government land or land vested in the Corporation;
~"'
(t) that the site of the building or work does not abut on a street
or projected street and that there is no access to such building or
H
278 SUPRE~E COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A work from any such street by a passage or pathway appertaining
to such site.
(3) The commissioner shall communicate the sanction to the person
who has given the notice; and where he refuses sanction on any of
the grounds specified in sub-section (2) or under section 340 he shall
B record a brief statement of his reasons for such refusal and
communicate the refusal along with the reasons therefor to the person
who has given the notice.
1
(4) The sanction or refusal as aforesaid shall be communicated in
such manner as may be specified in the bye-laws made in this behalf."
c This takes us to the provision of sealing as contained in Section 345A
of the DMC Act. That provision was inserted by Act 42 of 1984 with effect
from 10th December, 1985. One of the objects for the amendments, as stated
in the Statement of Objects & Reasons, is to contain massive conversion of
residential constructions into commercial complexes. The Statement of Objects
D and Reasons, inter alia, states that 'in recent years, growth of unauthorized
colonies, encroachment on public streets, unauthorized construction of public
and private lands and conversion of residential constructions into commercial
complexes have assumed alarming proportions'.

Section 345A reads as under:
E
"Section 345A. Power to seal unauthorised constructions.--

( l) It shall be lawful for the Commissioner, at any time, before or
after making an order of demolition under section 343 or of the
stoppage of the erection of any building or execution of any work
F under section 343 or under section 344, to make an order directing
the sealing of such erection or work or of the premises in which such
erection or work is being carried on or has been completed in the
manner prescribed by rules, for the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of this Act, or for preventing any dispute as to the nature
and extent of such erection or work.
G
(2) Where any erection or work or any premises in which any erection
or work is being carried on, has or have been sealed, the Commissioner
may, for the purpose of demolishing such erection or work in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, order such seal to be
H removed.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [SABHARWAL, CJ.] 279
(3) No person shall remove such seal except- A
(a) under an order made by the Commissioner under sub-section
(2); or

(b) under an order of an Appellate Tribunal or the Administrator,
made in an appeal under this Act."
B
A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that sealing can be
resorted to at any time, before or after making an order of demolition under

- Section 343 or under Section 344 in respect of such erection being carried
on or completed, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act.
Sections 343 and 344 read as under:
c
"Sec. 343.,-0rder of demolition and stoppage of buildings and works
in certain cases and appeal.-

(!)Where the erection of any building or execution of any work has
been commenced, or is being carried on, or has been completed without D
or contrary to the sanction referred to in section 336 or in contravention
of any condition subject to which such sanction has been accorded or
in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or bye-laws
made thereunder, the Commissioner may, in addition to any other
action that may be taken under this Act, make an order directing that
such erection or work shall be demolished by the person at whose E
instance the erection or work has been commenced or is being carried
on or has been completed, within such period (not being less than
five days and more than fifteen days from the date on which a copy
of the order of demolition with a brief statement of the reasons therefor
has been delivered to that person), as may be, specified in the order F
of demolition:

.---\ Provided that no order of demolition shall be made unless the
person has been given by means of a notice served in such manner
as the Commissioner may think fit, a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause why such order shall not be made: G
Provided further that where the erection or work has not been
completed, the Commissioner may by the same order or by a separate
order, whether made at the time of the issue of the notice under the
first proviso or at any other time, direct the person to stop the erection
or work until the expiry of the period within which an appeal against H
'-.,;
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A the order of demolition, if made, may be preferred under ~.uh-section
(2).

(2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner made
under sub-section ( 1) may prefer an appeal against the order to the
Appellate Tribunal within the period specified in the order for the
B demolition of the erection or work to which it relates.

(3) Where an appeal is preferred under sub-section (2) against an
order of demolition the Appellate Tribunal may, subject to the
provisions of sub-section (3) of section 34 7C stay the enforcement of
that order on such terms, if any, and for such period, as it may think
c fit:

Provided that where the erection of any building or execution of
any work has not been completed at the time of the making of the
order of demolition, no order staying the enforcement of the order of
demolition shall be made by the Appellate Tribunal unless security,
D sufficient in the opinion of the said Tribunal has been given by the
appellant for not proceeding, with such erection or work pending the
disposal of the appeal.
'·
(4) No court shall entertain any suit, application or order proceeding
for injunction or other relief against the Commissioner to restrain him
E
from taking any action or making any order in pursuance of the
provisions of this section.

(5) Subject to an order made by the Administrator on appeal under
section 3470, every order made by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal
F under this section, and subject to the orders of the Administrator and
the Appellate Tribunal on appeal, the order of demolition made by
the Commissioner shall be final and conclusive.

(6) Where no appeal has been preferred against an order of demolition
made by the Commissioner under sub-section (I) or where an order
G of demolition made by the Commissioner under that sub-section has
been confirmed on appeal, whether with or without variation, by the
Appellate Tribunal in a case where no appeal has been preferred
against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, and by the Administrator
> •
in a case where an appeal has been preferred against the order of the
Appellate Tribunal the person against whom the order has been made
H shall comply with the order within the period specified therein, or as
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [SABHARWAL, CJ.) 281
the case may be, within the period, if any fixed by the Appellate A
Tribunal or the Administrator on appeal and on the failure of the
person to comply with the order within such period, the Commissioner
may himself cause the erection or the work to which the order relates
to be demolished and the expenses of such demolition shall be
recoverable from such person as an arrear of tax under this Act."
B
Sec. 344 Order of stoppage of buildings or works in certain cases.-

(1) Where the erection of any building or execution of any work has
been commenced or is being carried on (but has not been completed)
without or contrary to the sanction referred to in section 336 or in
contravention of any condition subject to which such sanction has C
been accorded or in contravention of any provisions of this Act or
bye-laws made thereunder, the Commissioner may in addition to any
other action that may be taken under this Act, by order require the
person at whose instance the building or the work has been commenced
or is being carried on to stop the same forthwith. D
(2) If an order made by the Commissioner under section 343 or under
sub-section (1) of this section directing any person to stop the erection
of any building or execution of any work is not complied with, the
Commissioner may require any police officer to remove such person
and all his assistants and workmen from the premises or to seize any E
construction material, tool, machinery, scaffolding or other things
used in the erection of any building or execution of any work within
such time as may be specified in the requisition and such police
officer shall comply with the requisition accordingly.

(2A) Any of the things caused to be seized by the Commissioner F
under sub-section (2) shall be disposed of by him in the manner
specified in section 326.

(3) After the requisition under sub-section (2) has been complied
with, the Commis-sioner may, if he thinks fit, depute by a written
order a police officer or a municipal officer or other municipal G
employee to watch the premises in order to ensure that the erection
of the building or the execution of the work is not continued.

(4) Where a police officer or a municipal officer or other municipal
employee has been deputed under sub-section (3) to watch the
premises, the cost of such deputation shall be paid by the person at H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A whose instance such erection or execution is being continued or to
whom notice under ~uh-section(!) was given and shall be recoverable
from such person as an arrear of tax under this Act."

Section 34 7 contains a specific prohibition for change of the use of any
land or building. The said section reads as under:
B
"'Sec. 347 Restrictions on uses of buildings.-

No person shall, without the written permission of the Commissioner,
or otherwise than in conformity with the conditions, if any, of such
permission-
c (a) use or permit to be used for human habitation any part of a
building not originally erected or authorised to be used for that purpose
or not used for that purpose before any alteration has been made
therein by any work executed in accordance with the provisions of
this Act and the bye-laws made thereunder;
D
(b) change or allow the change of the use of any land or building;

(c) convert or allow the conversion of one kind of tenement into
another kind.''

Section 349A contains the power of the Central Government to make
E bye-laws for carrying out the provisions of Chapter XVI. Regulations may
provide for various matters including the use of sites for buildings from
different areas etc. as mentioned in Clauses (a) to (w) of sub-section (2) of
Section 349A, having regard to the requirement of town planning by the
municipalities. Town planning is now part of constitutional obligation on
F insertion of Part IX-A ire the Constitution of India w.e.f. I st June, 1993.
Section 349A was inserted soon thereafter on lst October, 1993.

Reference may also be made to Chapter XX of the DMC Act which
deals with markets, slaughter houses, trades and occupations and maintenance
and regulations thereof. Section 416 recognises the importance of the density
G of population, pressure on the services in case more number of persons use
the facilities or services The said section under the heading 'Trade and
Occupations' reads as ur der:

"Sec. 416 Factory. etc., not to be established without permission of
the Commissioner.
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [SABHARWAL, CJ.] 283
(1) No person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the A
Commissioner, establish in any premises, or materially alter, enlarge
or extend, any factory, workshop or trade premises in which it is
intended to employ steam, electricity, water or other mechanical power.

(2) The Commissioner may refuse to give such permission, if he is
of the opinion that the establishment, alteration, enlargement or B
extension of such factory, workshop or trade premises, in the proposed
position would be objectionable by reason of the density of the
population in the neighbourhood thereof, or would be a nuisance to
the inhabitants of the neighbourhood."

A bare perusal of building bye-laws shows how relevant is the user, C
commercial or residential, and the large impact of occupation load on various
facilities including water, sanitation and drainage.

Keeping future needs in view, experts prepare Master Plans. Perusal of
the Delhi Master Plan, 1962 and 200 I shows what were plan projections. At
the time of planning, the experts in the field of town planning, take into D
'account various aspects, such as, healthy living, environment, lung space
need, land use intensity, areas where the residential houses to be built and
where the commercial buildings to be located, need of household industries
etc. Provision for household industries in residential areas does not mean
converting residential houses in the commercial shops. It only means permitting E
activities of household industry in a part of a residential property. It does not
mean that residential properties can be used for commercial and trading
activities and sale and purchase of goods. Master Plan contemplates shops in
District Centres, Community Centres, Local Shopping Centres etc. and not in
residential areas. Be that as it may, for the present, we are not considering
the cases of small shops opened in residential houses for catering to day-to- F
• --\ day basic needs, but are considering large-scale conversion, in flagrant
violation of laws, of residential premises for commercial use.

In respect of planning, reference can usefully be made to Section 313
of the DMC Act as well. The said section provides for the requirement of G
layout plan of the land. It, inter alia, provides that before utilizing, selling or
otherwise dealing with any land under Section 312, the owner thereof shall
send to the Commissioner a written application with a layout plan of the land
showing various particulars including the purpose for which the building will
be used. For breach of Section 313, action can be taken under Section 314.
It has rightly not been disputed by any counsel that neither layout plan, nor H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) 2 S.C.R.

A the building plan, can be sanctioned by MCD except in the manner and for
the purpose provided in th•! Master Plan. If in the master plan, the land use .,
is residential, MCD cannot sanction the plan for any purpose other than
residential.

In the impugned judgment, while dealing with the provisions of the
B layout plan, it was observed that the provisions for user 'are only regulatory
in nature'. \Vhile dealing with the user, the High Court observed that 'the
power, whereby and whereunder the basic human rights or the fundamental
rights conferred upon a per;on is taken away, must be specifically conferred
by a statute'. The provision of user may be regulatory but all the same, they
C are mandatory and binding. In fact, almost all the planning provisions are
regulatory. The violations cf the regulatory provisions on massive scale can
result in plans becoming m·~rely scraps of papers. That is the ground reality
in the capital of the country. None has any right, human or fundamental, to
violate the law with immunity and claim any right to use a building for a
purpose other than authorised. Further, the words 'unless the context otherwise
D requires' in Section 331 of the DMC Act are ofno consequence for detennining
the point in issue as the context herein does not provide otherwise for the
present purposes. It does nm provide that the power of sealing under Section
345A cannot be exercised in case of misuser. In view of the clear language
of Section 345A, we are also unable to sustain the view of the High Court
E that action under Section 345A can be taken only when there exists order of
demolition under Section 343 or an order under sub-section (I) of Section
344. The conclusion of the High Court that action under Section 345A can
be taken only when there exists an order of demolition under Section 343, or
on passing of an order under sub-section (I) of Section 344, and in no other
contingency cannot be accepted in view of the clear provision of Section
F 345A that action can be taken even before or after an order is made under
those provisions.

It is clear from a conjomt reading of the definition of the expression 'to
erect a building' in Section 331 and Section 345A that conversion of user
would come within the purview of the expression 'to erect a building'. In this
G respect useful reference can also be made to Building Bye-Laws for the
Union Territory of Delhi, 1983, in particular Bye-Law Nos. 2.17 and 2.85,
defining the expressions 'Conversion' and 'To Erect' respectively, which
read as under:

"2.17 Conversion --The change of an occupancy to another occupancy
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [SABHARWAL, CJ.) 285
or change in building structure or part thereof resulting into change A
~/ of space or use requiring additional occupancy certificates. •

2.85 To Erect -To erect a building means:

(a) To erect a new building on any site whether previously built
upon or not;
B
(b) To re-erect any building of which portions above the plinth level
have been pulled down, burnt or destroyed; and
-1
-7 (c) Conversion from one occupancy to another."

Having regard to these definitions if a Building/structure not originally
constructed for use as a shop, is put to use as a shop, such conversion of use
c
would come within the ambit of the expression 'to re-erect' and, consequently,
within the ambit of the definition of the expression 'to erect a building'.

In view of the aforesaid, reversing the impugned judgment of the High
Court, we hold that under Section 345A of the DMC Act, the Commissioner D
of MCD is empowered to exercise power of sealing in case of misuser of any
premises.
~
Re : Question No.B Whether under the Delhi Development Act, DDA
has power to seal premises on account of its misuser?

The High Court held that both under Section 345A of the DMC Act
E
and under Section 31-A of the Delhi Development Act, there is no power to
seal premises on account of 'its' misuser. We have held that MCD has such
a power-under the DMC Act. The position, however, is different when the
provisions of the Delhi Development Act are examined.
F
The Delhi Development Act defines in Section 2(e) 'development area'
•· --l
to mean any area declared to be a development area under sub-section (1) of
Section 12. Section 12 reads as under:

"Sec. 12-Declaration of development areas and development of land
in those and other areas.- G
(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the
~
-\ Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
declare any area in Delhi to be a development area for the purposes
of this Act :
H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S. C.R.

A Provided that no such declaration shall be made unless a proposal
for such declaration ha:; been referred by the Central Government to
the Authority and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for expressing
their views thereon within thirty days from the date of the receipt of
the reference or within such further period as the Central Government
may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.
B
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Authority shall not
undertake or carry out any development of land in any area which is
not a development area.

(3) After the commencement of this Act no development of land shall
C be undertaken or carrit:d out in any area by any person or body
(including a department of Government) unless,-

(i) where that area is a development area, permission for such
development has been obtained in writing from the Authority in
accordance with th(: provision of this Act,
D
(ii) where that area is an area other than a development area,
approval of, or sanction for, such development has been obtained
in writing from the local authority concerned or any officer or
authority thereof empowered or authorised in this behalf, in
accordance with the provisions made by or under the law
E governing such authority or until such provisions have been made,
in accordance with the provisions of the regulations relating to
the grant of permission for development made under the Delhi
(Control of Building Operations) Act, 1955, (53 of 1955), and in
force immediately b1:fore the commencement of this Act:

F Provided that the local authority concerned may subject to the
provisions of section 53A amend those regulations in their application
to such area.

(4) After the coming into operation of any of the plans in any area
no development shall be undertaken or carried out in that area unless
G such development is also in accordance with such plans,

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (3) and (4)
development of any land begun by any department of Government or
any local authority before the commencement of this Act may be
completed by that department or local authority without compliance
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O. I. [SABHARWAL, CJ.] 287
with the requirements of those sub-sections." A
The power of DDA to develop land in non-development area is provided
in Section 22-A, which reads as under:

"Sec. 22-A Power of Authority to develop land in non-development
area.- B
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 12,
the Authority may, if it is of opinion that it is expedient to do so,
undertake or carry out any development of any land which has been
transferred to it or placed as its disposal under Section 15 or Section
22 even if such land is situate in any area which is not a development C
area."

Under Section 36, DDA has been empowered to require the local
authority, within whose local limits area developed by it is situated, to assume
responsibility for the maintenance of the amenities provided in the area by
DDA and other ancillary matters. Section 30 provides for power of DDA to D
make an order of demolition of building where any development has been
commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in contravention of
the master plan or zonal development plan or without the permission, approval
or sanction referred to in Section 12 or in contravention of any condition
subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted. E
Section 31 empowers DDA to stop development which is in contravention of
the plan, permission, approval or sanction, mentioned therein or contravention
of the conditions stipulated in such permission, approval or sanction. Section
3 lA empowers DDA to seal unauthorised development. If the misuser of the
premises would come within the ambit of unauthorised development, DDA
would have power to seal the premises. On the other hand, if misuser does F
not come within the ambit of 'unauthorised development', the power of
sealing would be lacking. Section 3 I-A of the Delhi Development Act reads
as under:

"Sec. 31-A Power to seal unauthorised development.-
G
(1) It shall be lawful for the Authority or the competent authority, as
the case may be, at any time, before or after making an order for the
removal or discontinuance of any development under Section 30 or
Section 3 I, to make an order directing the sealing of such development
in the manner prescribed by rules, for the purpose of carrying out the
H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (4006] 2 S.C.R.

A provisions of this Act, or for preventing any dispute as to the nature
and extent of such development.

(2) Where any development has been sealed, the Authority or the
competent authority, as the case may be, may, for the purpose of
removing or discontinuing such development, order the seal to be
B removed.

(3) No person shall remove such seal except--

(a) under an order made by the Authority or the competent
authority Urlder sub-section (2); or (b) under an order of the
c Appellate Tribunal or the Lieutenant Governor of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi, made in an appeal under this Act."

The expression 'development' is defined in Section 2(d) as under:

"Sec.2(d) "development" with its grammatical variations means the
carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in,
D on, over or under fand or the making of any material change in any
building or land and includes redevelopment;"

The Scheme under the Act clearly seems to be that during development
it is the responsibility of DDA to demolish and seal any premises if there is
E contravention. After the handing over of the area to the local authority under
Section 36, the power of demolition and/or sealing is conferred on that
authority. That local authority may be MCD or cantonment or any other
authority depending upon the developed area falling in the local limits of one
or the other. The 'development area' is any area declared to be such under
sub-section (I) of Section 12. So long as an area is a development area, the
F power to deal with it remains with the 'authority' which means Delhi
Development Authority in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act. After the
responsibility of any ar<~a has been assumed by the local authority in the
manner provided in Section 36, the power to deal with properties in that area
for any contravention would be exercisable by such authority depending
G upon the statutory provisions governing the said local authority, referred to
in Section 31-A as 'competent authority'. The power of'Competent Authority'
to seal premises would depend upon the statute governing it. The language
of Section 31-A when it states that 'it shall be lawful for the authority, or the
competent authority, as the case may be' shows that either the authority or
the competent authority would have the power therein. The Act does not
G contemplate that both DDA and the competent authority would have concurrent
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0. I. (SABHARWAL, CJ.] 289
power even after the local authority has assumed responsibility as provided A
in Section 36. Unlike Section 331, there is no provision in the Delhi
Development Act to confer on the authority the power of sealing in case of
misuse. The power under Section 31-A is to seal development under Section
30 or Section 31. The words 'such development' in Section 31-A refers to
removal or discontinuance of development under Section 30 or Sec. 31-A B
and not for any development for the purpose of carrying out the provisions
of the Act, as was sought to be contended by Mr. Ranjit Kumar. Section 31-
r A does not provide that sealing can be resorted to also for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of the Act. It can be resorted to for sealing of
development under Section 30 or Section 31 for the purpose of carrying out
the provisions of the Act. Misuse does not come within the ambit of C
development.

In view of the aforesaid, the High Court has rightly held that under the
Delhi Development Act, there is no power of sealing in case of misuser.

Re : Individual cases and the Directions to be issued in respect thereof D
and also in respect of other residential properties used illegally
for commercial purposes.

In Special Leave Petitions and Civil Appeal Nos. 608-61 lof 2003
challenge is to the judgments of High Court disposing of writ petitions in
terms of law laid down by Full Bench. E
In Civil Appeal No.610 of2003, it is contended on behalfofthe private
respondents that a factual error seems to have occurred when the matter was
disposed of by the High Court along with batch matters. It has been pointed
out that the Court has failed to note that the plot in question has been leased
out by DDA for commercial purposes; due licence has been issued by the F
( --i
MCD to open a restaurant which is being run in the name of Copper Chimney
and, therefore, there is no misuser. Our attention has been drawn to the copy
of the lease deed and the licence. If this is the factual scenario, the authorities
will examine it before taking action, if any, and the same would be subject
to such legal remedy as may be available in law to the private respondents. G
In Special Leave Petition No.23896 of2002 on behalfofresp<indentbank,
it has been pointed out that as per scheme ofDDA, banks have been permitted
in the residential properties. For DOA, it was submitted that the benefit of the
scheme is available subject to the fulfillment of various conditions stipulated
therein. In this view, the matter will have to be examined by the authorities H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 2 S.C.R.

A in the light of the scheme:, before proceeding to take action, if any, that may '-
be available in law and ~•ubject to legal remedies of the Bank.

In respect of C.A. No. 608 of 2003, MCD issued to the respondents, a
show cause notice dated I st August, 2000 under Section 345A read with
Sections 347, 343 and 344 of the DMC Act stating that property No. 39 Ring
B Road, Lajpat Nagar III was being misused in the name and style of "Jagdish
Store". In reply dated l 5ti1 September, 2000, it was, inter alia, stated that the
MCD itself has been allowing non-residential activities in residential areas
under a special scheme, without, however, giving any details or filing any
document in support thereof. Further, we asked the learned counsel for the
C respondents to place on record the plan for the construction of the building
which may have been sanctioned so as to ascertain whether the sanction was
for construction of the residential property or commercial property. The plan
~~ not been filed. The reasons are not far to seek. One of the simple method
for ascertaining that there is misuser or not, is to examine the sanctioned
plan.
D
At this stage, it would be useful to notice letter dated 28th August,
200"0 sent by the Ministry of Urban Development to the Commissioner, MCD,
Vice-Chairman, DDA and other authorities conveying the deep concern of
Parliament Consultative Committee over the rising menace of unauthorized
construction, suspected connivance of the staff of the different authorities in
E the matter and requesting the authorities to take strong and prompt action and
suggesting ten measures for strict enforcement. The letter reads as under:

"Annexure-R-1
No.J-13036/3/96-DDIIB
F Government of India
Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty
Alleviation
•••
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated: 28 . 08.2000
G
To
I. Shri P. S.Bhatnagar, r '
Chief Secreta::y,
Government of. National Capital
Territory of Delhi, Delhi.
H
-(
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O. I. [SABHARWAL, CJ.] 291

A
-) 2. Shri P.K.Ghosh,
Vice-Chairman,
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi

3. Shri S.P.Aggarwal,
B
Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

r 1 Town Hall, Delhi

4. Shri B.P.Misra, c
Chairperson
New Delhi Municipal Committee,
Palika Kendra,
New Delhi

5. The Development Commissioner, D

- -.\
Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi, Town Hall,
New Delhi

Subject : Unauthorised Encroachment and Illegal Constructions
in Delhi
E

Sir,

I am directed to say that the menace of illegal encroachment/
unauthorised construction in Delhi has been considered by the
Government of India at its highest level and it has been decided to
F
eliminate this menace with a firm hand. You are, therefore, requested
( .J
to take strong and prompt action against all illegal constructions/
unauthorised encroachments and also against misuses of land in
violation of the provisions of the Master Plan of Delhi. The following
measures are particularly required to be enforced strictly. G
(i) All illegal constructions should be demolished, not cosmetically

. ,. \ but in toto.
(ii) The cost of demolition should be recovered from the illegal
builders within 15 days of demolition. In case of non-payment
H
t-
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S. C.R.

A within 15 days, the amount due should be recovered as arrears
of land revenue.
I .

(iii) In all cases of illegal constructions, prosecution should invariably
be launched against builders under the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, Delhi Development Authority Act, New Delhi
B Municipal Council Act, etc. and the cases followed vigorously
with the polict authorities/courts.

(iv) Wherever the property is on lease, action should be taken under
the terms and conditions of lease agreement and re-entry effected
•
within the shortest permissible period under such lease agreement.
c After re-entry, physical possession of the property should be
taken by invoking the provisions of Public Premises Eviction
Act and damages collected immediately. The rates of damages/
misuse charges should be the same as per the formula followed
by the L&DO and approved by the Ministry of Urban
Development.
D
(v) In case of DDA flats, where constructions have come up beyond

E
the condonable limits, cancellation of dllotment should be carried
out in addition to the demolition of the additional construction.
Orders in respt:ct of condonable and non-condonable items are
being issued separately.

(vi) In cases, where after demolition, reconstruction is done, personal
• -
responsi'iility of the officer in-charge should be fixed and
d·partmental action taken against him.

(vii) In cases where illegal construction have taken place on rural
agricultural lands, action under the Provisions of the Delhi Land
F
Reforms Act, 1954, should also be taken and such lands should
be taken over as per provisions of the Delhi land Reforms Act.
~.
Action in this respect should be taken as soon as the plots are cut
by the colonisers and construction done in the shape of boundary
walls, etc. In other words, construction should be nipped in the
G bud. If it comes up, it should be demolished immediately. Action
in this respect should also be taken by the concerned local
agencies/ODA as per the bye-laws pertaining to lay out/service
plans, etc.
r •
(viii)In all cases where party obtains stay/status quo orders, prompt
H action to get th'e stay order vacated should be taken and higher
-~
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [SABHARWAL, CJ.] 293
court moved, wherever necessary. A
-1 (ix) All Senior Field Officers should be asked to carry out physical
inspection of the area under their charge and the Supervising
,, Officer should also make surprise checks to ensure that the
subordinate staff takes immediate action to check/demolish
unauthorised construction. Deterrent action should also be taken B
against the subordinate staff such as Building Inspectors, Junior
Engineers, Assistant Engineers, etc. who do not take prompt
action.
·)(
' ' (x) Field officers should be asked to maintain filed diaries and submit
them to the Supervisory Officer regularly. c
2. It is also requested that a monthly report should be sent to the
. Ministry of Urban Development by the 5th of each succeeding month.

3. In this connection, it may be noted that both the Parliament and the
Parliament Consultative Committee have expressed deep concern,
through questions and interpolations, over the rising menace of D
unauthorised constructions in Delhi and the suspected connivance of
the staff of the different authorities in the matter. A Flying Squad has
been constituted in the Ministry and if, as a result of findings of this.
Squad, it is found that the subordinate staff has not done its duty or
not carried out the aforesaid instructions, strict action against the E
Subordinate/Supervisory Staff wquld be taken by the Government.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Dr. Nivedita P. Haran)
Joint Secretary to the Government of India
I J Copy for information and necessary action to:

1. Deputy C.V.O., Ministry ofUD&PA, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. L&DO, Ministry of UD&PA, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi

3. DG(W), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
Sd/-
(N.L. Upadhyay)"
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 2 S.C.R.

A The aforesaid letter has been considered by this Court while passing
order dated 31st July, 200 l, part whereof ha~ been quoted earlier. Although t >

the letter and also the obs1~rvations made in the order are in the context of
unauthorized constructions, the same would equally apply to the misuser as
well. It would be useful to reproduce the entire order which reads as under:

B "Order dated 3112001 in W.P.(C) No.72511994 -

We have seen two affidavits, one of the Chief Secretary as well as the
affidavit on behalf of tht: M.C.D. We are sorry to note that the
affidavits do not specifically deal with the points in issue. Vide our
order dated 9th May. 200 I these aut!1orities along with Vice-Chairman,
c D.D.A, Chairperson, N.D.M.C. and the Development Commissioner
were required to file affidavit to indicate as to what measures they
have taken in the implementation of the letter dated 28th August,
2000. At least ten measures were required to be [aken in. terms of the
said letter dated 28;h August, 2000. The affidavits in reply do not
deal with them specifically and general averm.:nts have been made
D
which are not satisfactory.

E
The perusal of the affidavits further shows that the parties
concerned have not even touched the tip of the iceberg as far as
demolition of unauthorised constructions is concerned. The number
of unauthorised constructions which are said to have been demolished
-
are a small fraction of what is required to be done. It is quite evident
that there is now no fear of the law catching up at least with those
persons who do not believe in adhering to following the rules and
regulations laid down with respect to construction of property.
Unauthorised encroachment and illegal construction even as per the
F affidavits are increasing. It is dangerous trend if the people do not
have either respect for or fear of law primarily due to non-enforcement
of the law. It is something which causes us some concern and it
would be appropriate if serious thought is given to this aspect at the
highest quarters.
G We direct the Chief Secretary as well as the Commissioner, M.C.D.
to file within four W(eks specific affidavit dealing with each of the
clauses of the letter dated 28th August, 2000. They will also indicate
as to what is the total encroached area in Delhi as well as the number
of unauthorised/illegal constructions which have been raised.
H
I
-I
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O. I. [SABHARWAL, CJ.) 295
The affidavit of the Chief Secretary seems to give some indication A
of action taken for removing encroachment from some of these areas
in Delhi. We would require the Union of India/Ministry of Urban
Development to check and inform the Court whether what is stated
in the annexures to the affidavit of the Chief Secretary from pages 43
to 63 is correct. The Central Government will be at liberty to ask for B
information from the local authority in order to enable it to comply
with the orders passed today.

The M.C.D. will also inform this Court in the affidavit to be filed
as to why no requisite action has been taken for stopping the gross
misuse of the buildings in the residential areas for commercial purposes C
and in the construction of commercial buildings in residential areas
where only residential houses are permitted. To come up after four
weeks."

Now, we revert to the task of implementation. Despite its difficulty,
this Court cannot remain a mute spectator when the violations also affect the D
environment and healthy living of law-abiders. The enormity of the problem
which, to a great extent, is the doing of the authorities themselves, does not
mean that a beginning should not be made to set things right. If the entire
misuser cannot be stopped at one point of time because of its extensive
nature, then it has to be stopped in a phased manner, beginning with major
violators. There has to be a will to do it. We have hereinbefore noted in brief, E
the orders made in the last so many years but it seems, the same has. had no
effect on the authorities. The things cannot be permitted to go on in this
manner forever. On one hand, various laws are enacted, master plans are
prepared by expert planners, provision is made in the plans also to tackle the
problem of existing unauthorised constructions and misusers and, on the p
other hand, such illegal activities go on unabated openly under the gaze of
everyone, without having any respect and regard for law and other citizens.
r -~ We have noticed above the complaints of some of the residents in respect of
-( such illegalities. For last number of years even the High Court has been
expressing similar anguish in the orders made in large number of cases. We
may briefly notice some of those orders. G
More than fifteen years ago, on 17th May, 1990, a Division Bench of
the Delhi High Court presided over by Justice B.N. Kirpal (as the former
I\ Chief Justice of India then was) in the case of Ahuja Property Developers (P)
Ltd v. MC.D., (1990) 42 Delhi Law Times 474, dealt with a writ petition in
respect of a building in Kailash Colony, New Delhi and noticed the extent of H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) 2 S.C.R.

A illegalities and the massive ,;onstruction made that could not be used for
residential purposes since there was no kitchen or kitchen facilities. Dealing
with the argument put forth on behalf of builder that there is no power to seal
•
any building under Section 345A, dismissing the writ petition, it was observed
that the petitioner had admittedly violated the law and cannot now be permitted
B to cry wolf. The Court said that the petitioner had admittedly constructed a
building not only at variance with the sanctioned plan but also at variance
with the completion certificate and completion drawings.

Again on 22nd October, 1990, another Division Bench dealt with a
property in Greater Kailash :I, New Delhi in the case of DDA v. Rajinder
C Mittal, ( 1991) 20 DRJ 65 and observed that the residential buildings can only
be used for residential purposes. The use of premises for widespread
commercial activities is prohibited. This was while dealing with a criminal
matter arising out of prosecution under Section 29 of the Delhi Development
Act.

D On May 18, 1995, Justice R.C. Lahoti (as the former Chief Justice of
India, then was) in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank v. The Commissioner,
MC.D. & Ors., (1995) 34 DRJ 492 echoed similar words and referred to
decision of this Court, observing that the word 'environment' is of broad
spectrum which brings within its ambit hygienic atmosphere and ecological
balance. It is, therefore, not only the duty of the State but also the duty of
E every citizen to maintain hygienic environment. There is constitutional
imperative on the State Government and the municipalities, not only to ensure
and safeguard proper environment but also an imperative duty to take adequate
measures to promote, protect and improve both the man-made and the natural
environment. Dealing with the Municipal Laws providing for power of
F demolition, it was observed that while interpreting municipal legislation framed
in public interest, a strict constitutional approach must be adopted. A perusal
of the Master Plan shows that the public purpose behind it is based on
historic facts guided by expert opinion.

The injurious effects on the health and well being of those living in the
G neighbourhood were also noticed. Further, notice was taken of the fact of the
unscrupulous builders building properties in deviation of laws, master plan
with the connivance or collusion of the authorities.

On 9th February, 1996 dealing with various properties at Pusa Road in
the case of Anil Kumar Khurana v. MCD (1996 (36) DRJ 558] writing
H separate opinion as a member of Division Bench of Delhi High Court, one
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [SABHARWAL, CJ.] 297
of us (Y.K.Sabharwal, CJ) noticed that the unauthorised constructions and A
unauthorised user of residential building for commercial purposes in Delhi
had gained alarming proportions and crossed all limits. It was said that these
activities are against the interests of the society at large and need to be dealt
with firmly and that the public interest demands that the court should not
come to the aid of those who break the law with immunity and put up
commercial complexes on the land meant admittedly for residential use. These B
complexes are put up and spaces purchased for petty commercial consideration
without any regard to the hardship and inconvenience of other citizens. It was
further said that in respect of blatant unauthorised constructions and misuser,
it cannot be said that the Commissioner of MCD has a discretion to order
demolition or not and vesting of discretion in the circumstances would itself C
be arbitrary and illegal.

In the concluding paragraph it was stated that:

"In the end, I regret to notice that despite warning and caution given
•,
by the Apex Court and also this court, from time to time, that stem D
action will be taken against unauthorised constructions and misuse,
these activities have gone on unabated, without any let or hindrance
and all the warnings have fallen on deaf ears without any effect on
the unscruplous builders and purchasers of these spaces. It is, therefore,
necessary to once again send a message, loudly, clearly and firmly to
all those who indulge in such illegal activities that courts will not E
come to the aid of persons who indulge in such blatant unauthorised
constructions and misuser of the properties. It is also the duty of the
courts to examine these matters carefully before granting injunction
restraining demolition of such unauthorised constructions. Ordinarily
the courts before issuing injunctions in such matters should insist F
upon filing of the sanctioned plans and details about the existing
structures to prima facie find out whether the existing structures are
J _\
in accordance with the sanctioned plan and building bye laws etc or
not. The courts may also consider appointment of independent person
to verify correctness of representations made about existing structures
as in many cases unauthorised constructions are raised after issue of G
injunctions and in cover and garb of orders of injunction. The alarming
nature of such illegal activities can be controlled only by due
-~
cooperation from all citizens including the Media and the Press. It is
\
the duty of all to expose these law breakers. I hope the Media would
bring to the notice of public in general that unauthorised constructions H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A and misuser have been severely dealt with by this court and henceforth
also no leniency would be shown in such matters. A copy of this
judgment shall be sent forthwith to Delhi Doordarshan and All India
Radio. Everyone ha~· to be told that such unauthorised activities are
against public interest. These activities have to be stopped forthwith.
If in spite of this warning anyone indulges in such unauthorised
B construction or misuse or in purchase of these unauthorized
constructions he would be doing it at his own risk and peril and
would not be heard to say that he has made large investments. I hope
that at least now this message would be taken with all seriousness. •
In view of the above, in my opinion, all the petitions and appeals
c deserve dismissal with costs quantified at Rs. I 0,000/- in each case.
These costs would pe utilised by M.C.D. for creating in a Special
Cell which should be set up to curb unauthorised construction and
misuser of the immoveable properties so that at least a beginning is
made now to promptly check these illegal activities. The officials and
D officers manning this Cell will have to be informed that any dereliction
of duty would be severely dealt with."

It seems that in view of the aforesaid judgment attaining finality, some
formal or cosmetic demolition had taken place. What is the position of these
properties now is evident from the affidavit dated 16th November, 2005 filed
E by Additional Commissioner, MCD placing on record the present status after
conducting inspections in second week of November, 2005. A perusal of the
status report in respect of properties referred in the aforesaid case shows
large scale violations in the shape of show-rooms, commercial offices, shops,
law institutes and gymnasiums. The report shows that even after a lapse of
F I 0 years, commercial activity is in full swing. This also shows the urgent
need to introduce stringem measures for fixing accountability.

Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of the High Court and
this Court, the enforcement of the laws and the implementation of the orders
are utterly lacking. If the laws are not enforced and the orders of the courts
G to enforce and implement the laws are ignored, the result can only be total
lawlessness. It is, therefore, necessary to also identify and take appropriate
action against officers responsible for this state of affairs. Such blatant misuse
of properties at large sea.le cannot take place without connivance of the
concerned officers. It is also a source of corruption. Therefore, action is also
necessary to check corruption, nepotism and total apathy towards the rights
H of the citizens. Those who own the properties that are misused have also
r

'
-1
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [SABHARWAL, CJ.]

implied responsibility towards the hardship, inconvenience, suffering caused A
299

to the residents of the locality and injuries to third parties. It is, therefore, not
only the question of stopping the misuser but also making the owners at
default accountable for the injuries caused to others. Similar would also be
the accountability of errant officers as well since, prima facie, such large
scale misuser, in violation of laws, cannot take place without the active
connivance of the officers. It would be for the officers to show what effective
B
steps were taken to stop the misuser.
-:
We have perused the suggestions given by MCD. It has suggested four
steps. MCD requires six months to complete the whole survey in 12 zones
divided into 134 wards. As a second step, after initial survey of all the zones,
notice of the proposed action/sealing and/or stopping misuse to be given to
c
the concerned persons. The third step is grant of opportunity to them of being
heard. The fourth step is the operations for sealing blatant arid obvious cases
of large scale misuse at the first instance. Further suggestion is that the major
violations would be sealed first and simultaneously action in all 12 zones
would be conducted after follo\ving the due process of law. It is stated that D
., the success of operation w\2uld largely depend on the availability of the
Police force. Recognising th~t the parties later tamper the seal, it is suggested
+ that necessary directions be issued warning those who tamper the seal that
they shall be punished for contempt of court.

Regarding the Ad hoc Trade Registration Scheme, 2004, the stand of E
the MCD is that, if allowed by the Court, it will be implemented in the same
area as is permitted by the Master Plan for category 'A' household industry
to the extent of 25% of the floor space or 30 sq. mt., whichever is less, and
' this will be the maximum space permissible. The minimum space having
already been specified in the scheme as 30 sq. ft. We may note that the
. __ \
scheme for ad hoc registration itself provides that it is applicable to the
following areas :
F

I. Walled city and other built up areas.

2. Schemes executed by the Delhi Improvement Colonies.
G
3. Schemes executed by the Ministry of Rehabilitation Colonies.
~
'"'!, 4. Resettlement Colonies.

5. Urban Villages
' 6. Unauthorised regularized colonies. H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

1- •
A This scheme is not applicable to the following areas :
I. NDMC and De,lhi Cantonment area.
2. Planned Colonies and housing schemes developed after 1957.

3. Unauthorised colonies not regularized.
B 4. J.J. Clusters.

5. Staff Housing colonies.
•
6. Rural Settlement (except household and rural industrial units
Group A & Al ·Annexure-11)

C The areas and the colonies above-referred themselves show that the so-
called Registration Scheme, 2004 can have no applicability to the nature of
misuse under consideration. lt deserves to be 11oted that it is implicit in the
scheme that a person to get benefit of the scheme has himself to be resident
of such premises.
D The introduction of tre Ad hoc Registration Scheme would not only
regularize the illegalities but further encourage more illegalities to take place
by sending a wrong message underlying the press release. This ad hoc scheme
has been stayed by this Court. A similar scheme was also sought to be
introduced by ODA as well for grant of temporary permission for commercial
E use in industrial plots and for condonation of misuse of industrial premises
for offices and other comm"rcial purposes on payment of requisite charges.
On learned Amicus Curiae :iling IA 18 l 6 of 2002 seeking stay of the said
scheme, the scheme was given up and an affidavit filed that no action is
being taken by DOA upon the scheme or the notice, subject matter of the
application. The introduction of such schemes by MCD and DOA show the
F extent of the apathy and lack of concern of these bodies.

Mr. Ashwini Kumar, karned senior Advocate appearing for MCD, also
contended that since there is a large scale misuse of residential premises for
commercial purposes, it is a physical impossibility to remove the misuser.
G The contention deserves outright rejection. We have already noted how the
misuser has attained such enormity. Despite repeated orders and directions,
MCD took no action. Such a contention is not open to MCD. It is not merely
a case of only lack of will to take action, it appears to be a case of
predominance of extraneous considerations.

H Rule of law is the essence of Democracy It has to be preserved. Laws
l_

M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [SABHARWAL, CJ.] 301
~ have to be enforced. Jn the case in hand, the implementation and enforcement A
of law to stop blatant misuse cannot be delayed further so as to await the so
called proposed survey by MCD. The suggestions would only result in further
postponement of action against illegalities. It may be noted that the MCD has
tiled zonewise/wardwise abstract of violations in terms of commercialisation
as in November, 2005. According to MCD, the major violation has been
determined in respect of those roads where commercialisation of the buildings B
is more than 50%. According to it, the major violations in 12 zones are
spread on 229 roads. Roads on which there are major violations are, thus,
known. In respect of these, there is no need for any survey or individual
notice. Beginning must be made. to stop misuser on main roads of width of
80 ft. or more. The names of these roads can be published in newspapers and C
adequate publicity given, granting violators sJme time to bring the user of
the property in conformity with the permissiblb user, namely, for residential
use if the plans have been sanctioned for const~ction of a residential house.
In case owner/user fails to do so, how, in which manner and from which
date, MCD will commence sealing operation shall be placed on record in the
form of an affidavit of its Commissioner to be filed within two weeks. On D
consideration of this affidavit, we will issue further directions including
constitution of a Monitoring Committee, if necessary. The_ issue of
accountability of officers and also the exact manner of applicability of Polluter
Pay Principle to owners and officers would be further taken up after misuser
is stopped at least on main roads. Civil Appeal Nos.608/2003 above referred E
relates to Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IL The other cases relate to areas like
Green Park Extn., Green Park Main, Greater Kailash, New Friends Colony,
Defence Colony, West Patel Nagar, etc.

These areas are illustrative. The activities include Big Furnishing Stores,
Galleries, Sale of Diamond and Gold Jewellary, sale of Car Parts etc. F
Having held that the Commissioner ofMCD has power under the DMC
Act to seal premises in case of its misuser, we issue the following directions
for taking immediate steps to seal residential premises being used for
commercial purpose :
G
l. MCD shall within I 0 days give wide publicity in the leading
newspapers directing major violations on main roads (some
instances of such violators and roads have been noted
herein before) to stop misuser on their own, within the period of
30 days.
H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A 2. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/occupier to file within
30 days an affidavit with Commissioner of MCD stating that the ""
misuser has been stopped.

3. In case misuser is not stopped, sealing of the premises shall
commence after 30 days, from the date of public notice, first
B taking up the violations on roads which are 80 ft. wide and more.
All authorities are directed to render full assistance and
cooperation. After expiry of 30 days from the date of public
notice, electrici1:y and water supply shall be disconnected.

4. Details of the Roads and the violations shall also be placed on
c the website by the MCD and copies also sent to Resident Welfare
Associations of the area which should be involved in the process
of sealing of misuser. The Commissioner of MCD shall file an
affidavit, within two weeks, in terms of directions contained in
this judgment, whereafter directions for constitution of the
Monitoring Committee would be issued. The sealing would be
D effected by the officers authorised by the Commissioner of MCD
in consultation with the Monitoring Committee.

5. The appropriate directions for action, if any, against the officers
responsible for the misuse and for payment of compensation by
them and by violators would be issued after the misuser is stopped.
E
6. None will tamp•~r with the seals. Any tampering with seal will be
sternly dealt with. Tampering with seal will include opening
another entrance for use of premises.

7. It would be open to the owner/occupier to approach the
Commissioner for removal of the seal on giving undertaking that
F the premises would be put to only authorised use.

8. Particulars of cases where violators may have obtained orders of
stay will be filed in this Court by MCD.

9. MCD shall file monthly status report as to action taken by 15th
G of each month commencing from I 0th April, 2006.

10. In case misuser is not stopped in the premises involved in the
•
civil appeals and special leave petitions, subject to what is stated
in this judgment, the MCD will take immediate steps to seal
those premises soon after expiry of 30 days.
H
y
' M.C. MEHTA v. U.O. l. [SABHARWAL, CJ.] 303
Civil Appeals, Interlocutory Applications (except I.A.22) and Special
Leave Petitions are disposed of but MCD is granted liberty to seek further
directions from this Court from time to time.
A

K.G. Special Leave Petition disposed of.

(

1
• >