N.D.M.C. & Ors. Vs.
M/S. Tanvi Trading & Credit Pvt. Ltd. & Ors [2009] INSC 378 (20
February 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of
2008 NDMC & others ... Appellants Versus M/s Tanvi Trading & Credit
Pvt. Ltd. & Others ... Respondents With I.A. No. 1 In Civil Appeal No. 5293
of 2008 Union of India ... Appellants Versus M/s Tanvi Trading & Credit
Pvt. Ltd. & Others ... Respondents
ORDER
1.
By
filing these applications, the applicants have prayed to clarify the concept of
`mother plot' and of the word `adjoining' appearing in LBZ guidelines dated
February 08, 1988 so that fresh plans can be submitted by them to the NDMC in
accordance with law and strictly within the four corners of judgment dated
August 28, 2008 rendered by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of 2008 and
Civil Appeal No. 5293 of 2008.
2.
The
Learned Counsel for applicants submitted that applicants are proposing to
construct only a building with two storeys (ground and first floor) in the plot
in question which will not exceed the height of the buildings on either side,
on Amrita Shergil Marg.
From the record of
the case, it is evident that Plot No. 47 belonging to the applicants faces
Amrita Shergil Marg. From the decision rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.5292-5293
of 2008, it is clear that the concept of `mother plot' would not be applicable
so far as Plot No. 3 47 is concerned because of bifurcation of original plot
which had taken place pursuant to a decree of Court. In the judgment which is
sought to be clarified, it is held that even if the concept of `mother plot' is
not made applicable to the facts of the case, the appellants would be entitled
to construct a building of the height of the bungalow which is the lowest on
the adjoining plots. It is also clear from the clarification relating to the
LBZ guidelines issued on 09.05.1997, that to have uniformity, the height of the
main building on the adjoining plots on Amrita Shergil Marg will have to be
taken into consideration and not of any building on a different road, that is
Prithvi Raj Road which is on the rear of the plot in question.
3.
With
the above clarification, the application is disposed of accordingly.
....................................CJI
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
......................................J.
(R.V. RAVEENDRAN)
......................................J.
(J.M. PANCHAL)
NEW
DELHI,
February
20, 2009.
Back
