Judgment:
Rekha Sharma, J.
1. Rama Road in West Delhi was conceived as an 'Industrial Area' for extensive industries with large industrial plots. The area was developed by the Delhi Improvement Trust and pursuant thereto plots were sold on leasehold basis. One of the conditions attached was that the plots so sold shall not be sub-divided. It is not in dispute that despite the bar against sub-division the plots were divided and sub-divided without obtaining permission or sanction from the appropriate authorities. The massive scale at which the sub-divisions have taken place can be judged from the fact that out of the originally allotted 61 plots 37 have been sub-divided. Seven of such plots bearing number 53,54,70,63,69,33-33A and 21 fall in Karol Bagh zone. Though before division the said seven plots measured between 50221 and 4087 square meters they have been so brutally sub-divided that from out of the said 7 plots 305 plots have been carved out with an area varying from 13238 to 11 square meters. And, all this is only illustrative and not exhaustive. The violation of the said term of the lease is so wide-spread, so glaring that the details would leave one aghast and dumb founded. And, as if these divisions and further sub-divisions were not enough, on most of those truncated smaller plots we find double or triple storeyed buildings mocking at law for, like illegal divisions and sub-divisions of plots those buildings have been constructed without getting the plans sanctioned and in flagrant violation of the municipal and building bye-laws. All this would have remained under wraps but for the Court Commissioner of Karol Bagh Zone appointed by this Court in Civil Writ No. 4582/03 Kalyan Sanstha v. Union of India.
2. It so happened that on July 8, 2006 when the Court Commissioner of Karol Bagh Zone was on a visit to his area he found ten instances of on-going construction at plot No. 71 Rama Road at various stages ranging from laying foundation for basement, construction of first floor and second floor. He also found that Plots No. 70 and 71 originally measuring about 10.76 acres each had exchanged hands from one owner to another and had been illegally sub-divided and sold to different buyers who had raised huge constructions thereon without sanction of plans. A report to that effect was submitted by him. The same is dated July 28, 2006. It was this visit and the report of the Court Commissioner which opened the pandora box of illegal sub-divisions and unauthorized constructions in the Rama Road area. Consequent upon the expose? the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in a communication addressed to the Court Commissioner dated January 11,2007 admitted that out of 61 industrial plots 37 had been sub-divided and in a communication dated December 22, 2006 furnished details of the sub-divisions which had taken place on plots No. 53,54,70,63,69,33-33A, 21 and 22 falling in Karol Bagh zone showing and as already noticed above, how 7 plots meant not to be sub-divided have turned into 305 plots. Alarmed by the report of the Court Commissioner this Court on July 31,2006 issued direction to the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi to inquire into the matter and also into the conduct of the Deputy Commissioner and other Officers including the Junior Engineer of the zone. This made the Kumbhkarans of that zone stir a bit.
3. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi initiated demolition action on plots No. 71/6 and 71/7. This led to the filing of the Writ Petition titled Anil Dewan and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi bearing No. 13895-918/06 13895-918/06 seeking inter- alias a direction in the nature of mandamus to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi not to carry out any demolition of their aforesaid properties.
4. The petitioners claimed that the Delhi Development Authority had permitted conversion of plots No. 71/6 and 71/7 into free-hold and that thereafter the owner executed various sale-deeds in favor of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they having purchased the plots after the same having been converted into free-hold, the sub-divisions could not be said to be illegal. As regards the constructions raised thereon it was submitted that the same were prior to December 2005 and were, thereforee, protected from demolition in view of Section 3 of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act 2006 which came into effect on May 19,2006. The said Section runs as under:
3. Enforcement to be kept in abeyance -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any relevant law or any rules, regulations or bye-laws made there under, the Central Government shall within a period of one year of the coming into effect of this Act, take all possible measures to finalise norms, policy guidelines and feasible strategies to deal with the problem of unauthorized development with regard to the under-mentioned categories, namely:
(a) mixed land use not conforming to the Master Plan:
(b) construction beyond sanctioned plans; and
(c) encroachment by slum and Jhuggi-Jhompri dwellers and hawkers and street vendors, so that the development of Delhi takes place in a sustainable and planned manner.
(2) Subject to the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, status quo as on the 1st day of January, 2006 shall be maintained in respect of the categories of unauthorized development mentioned in Sub-section (1)
(3) All notices issued by any local authority for initiating action against the categories of unauthorized development referred to Sub-section (1), shall be deemed to have been suspended and no punitive action shall be taken during the said period of one year.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Act, the Central Government may, at any time before the expiry of one year, withdraw the exemption by notification in the Official Gazette in respect of one or more of the categories of unauthorized development mentioned in Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3), as the case may be.
5. Being conscious of the fact that Section 3 of the aforementioned Act protects only those unauthorized constructions as had come up before January 1, 2006 and being also conscious of the fact that Section 4(a) of the said Act provides that no relief under Section 3 is available to those unauthorized constructions which were started or continued on or after 1st day of January 2006, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would themselves demolish unauthorized constructions which they had raised after January 1, 2006. After the said undertaking at the Bar the case was adjourned from time to time to obtain reports from the Court Commissioner and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to know whether in terms of the undertaking voluntary demolitions had been carried out or not. While this was going on, and as in the meanwhile Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 lapsed the petitioners came up with another plea. It was of alleged discrimination vis-a- vis others as according to them sub-divisions and unauthorized constructions also existed on plots Nos. 69,63,70,33,54,53,22,21 etc but no demolition had been carried out on those plots. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi had not told us anything about those plots and constructions thereon. It was a revelation and we wanted to have confirmation. A direction was thus issued to the Court Commissioner to file status report with regard to those properties also. He filed the report dated January 12, 2007 and confirmed that large scale sub-divisions and illegal constructions had taken place in the said plots as well. It appears that our above said direction to the Court Commissioner had rung some alarm bells and soon enough the Municipal Corporation which had all along turned a blind eye to all that was happening or had happened initiated action against the owners/ occupiers of the said plots also by sealing their premises. Aggrieved by the said action of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi spate of writ petitions were filed with regard to those plots seeking inter-alia a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi not to carry out any sealing or demolition and to regularize sub-divisions of the plots. The latter relief for regularization of sub-divisions was claimed on the basis that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had earlier regularized sub-divisions in respect of some plots. This fact was also confirmed by the Court Commissioner in his report dated January 17, 2007 Along with which he enclosed a copy of the order dated June 7, 1996 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of regularization of a sub-divided plot No. 69/1-A, Najafgarh Road, Industrial Area amongst others on the condition of payment of cost of land equivalent to 10% of the total plot area as per land and development rates for providing common facilities which worked out to Rs. 75,01,000/-. Faced with this the Municipal Corporation of Delhi took the stand that if any of the petitioners would apply seeking permission/regularization of the sub-divisions their cases would be considered in the light of the parameters which were applied to the earlier cases.
6. While all those writ petitions Along with writ petition of Anil Dewan and Ors. (supra) were pending consideration by this Court, the Master Plan for Delhi- 2021 was notified on February 7, 2007. The petitioners have heavily relied upon Clause 7.6.1 of Master Plan, 2021 and on the basis thereof have contended that their properties lying sealed on account of sub-divisions and for reason of constructions raised without sanction of plans are liable to be de-sealed. Before we proceed to deal with the submission let us have a look at Clause 7.6.1. This is how it reads.:
7.6.1 EXISTING PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREAS
These industrialized areas were developed in the 70's and over the years, have deteriorated considerably in terms of the physical infrastructure and, in some cases deficiencies on this score have persisted in an overall sense. Besides, there have been changes in the nature of activities in some of the areas and there have also been demands for using part of the plots for activities, which could be classified as commercial. There may also be a need to see whether further densification is possible in terms of creating smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a larger number of industries/ units. Guidelines for redevelopment of existing industrial areas shall be framed within 2 years by DDA in consultation with GNCTD and the local body. Till such time, the existing sub divisions may continue.
There is, thereforee, a need for modernization and up-gradiation of the existing industrial areas with due regard to environmental considerations. Since most of the Industrial areas are located along the Mass Public Transport Corridors, there is also a need for optimizing the use around these areas through the process of redevelopment.
This process of upgradiation and redevelopment will need to be carried out in a planned manner, and in a public- private partnership framework, in which the entrepreneurs contribute to the betterment and subsequent maintenance through suitable Operation and Maintenance arrangements.
What does this provision imply? Does the expression 'sub-divisions may continue' mean that the petitioners or persons similarly placed who have come to occupy the sub-divided plots in contravention of the lease deeds are exempted from punitive action, and if so, will such an exemption also extend to unauthorized constructions raised on the sub-divided plots
7. It is a matter of common knowledge that even though Master Plan 1962, the Zonal Development Plans, Municipal law and Building Bye laws all were in place yet the Capital city of Delhi was allowed to grow in a haphazard manner. The residential colonies were allowed to be converted into centres of small and big trades. Large tracts of public land were permitted to be occupied by land mafia and even open spaces outside residential colonies meant for public use did not remain unaffected at the hands of land grabbers and builders? mafia. A road to hell was thus paved while the administrators slumbered. In the matter before us the terms of the lease deeds did not permit sub-division of plots and even if in a given case sub-division was regularized as in the case of plot No. 69-1/A Najafgarh Road it was on payment of cost of land equivalent to 10% of the total area as per Land DO rates which was as high as Rs. 7501000/-.
8. thereforee, had it not been for the apathy, indifference and inaction on the part of the Delhi Development Authority to take action in terms of the lease deeds against those who sub-divided the plots none of the petitioners would have come to occupy the sub-divided plots or could have raised constructions thereon to run their business establishments from there. They had violated the terms of the lease. They had violated the building laws and bye-laws. And now, these very persons who violated the law with impunity seek to get solace and protection under Clause 7.6.1.
9. The virus of Clause 7.6.1 has not been challenged. And who would? The violators of law who are sought to be protected, or those who saw those violations and yet turned a blind eye and refused to act? Anyhow, there being no such challenge, we refrain to go into it. But then what is provided in Clause 7.6.1? It speaks of deterioration 'in terms of 'physical infrastructure' and of some 'defencies on this score'. It also notes 'changes in the nature of activities in some areas' and refers to the demands for using 'part of the plots' for commercial activities and need to see' whether further densification is possible'. And above all, it is stated, guidelines for redevelopment of existing industrial areas have to be framed within two years. These and these only are reasons delineated for saying that: 'Till such time, the existing sub-divisions may continue.' It does not approve the sub-divisions. It does not make them legal. It merely says that till the guidelines are framed and which are required to be framed within two years, till that time the existing 'sub-divisions' may continue. Sub-divisions of what? Obviously of industrial plots. This is as clear as sun-shine. It leaves, to my mind, no manner of doubt. It says nothing less nothing more. But then, the petitioners want us to read into it something more. They say this protection has to be afforded also to the constructions raised on these sub-divided plots. This, according to them is inherent in the sentence 'Till such time the existing sub-divisions may continue.' In other words they want us to read the sentence as under:
Till such time the existing sub-divisions and constructions raised thereon may continue.
They thus want us to add into the sentence something which is clearly not there. What prevented the drafters from including the words which the petitioners want us to include? Despite being aware and conscious of illegal constructions on these sub-divided plots, for it is not believable that they were ignorant of it, the framers of the Master Plan did not think it proper to include the aforesaid words and this being a deliberate omission, we cannot and must not supply that omission. There are atleast as many as nine reasons for that. Firstly, it is not for us to legislate. Secondly, the language used being clear and unambiguous it is not capable of any other construction. Thirdly, the interpretation suggested by the petitioners amounts to affording protection from penal consequences. It may be noted that the sub-divisions being only against the terms of lease it did not invite any criminal action whereas illegal constructions would be a criminal offence (see Section 461 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act) It is not believable that the representatives of the people would give protection to such offenders. Fifthly, there is a presumption that the legislature has used the words correctly and exactly and not loosely and inexactly. Sixthly, as stated by Lord Cranworth, - To adhere as closely as possible to the literal meaning of the words used, 'is a cardinal rule'. And, by departing from it 'we launch into a sea of difficulties which it is not easy to fathom' (1852) 21 LJ Ch. 405. Seventhly, we have to see the material words and give them their plain grammatical meaning. Eighthly, it is not permissible to read words into a statute which are not there more so when, as in the present case, the words suggested by the petitioners cannot be taken to have been accidentally omitted and further because literal construction does not make Clause 7.6.1 meaningless and also because it cannot be said with certainty that the words suggested by the petitioners would have been inserted by the Legislature had its attention been drawn to what appears to be a deliberate omission and lastly the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 operates independent of the Master Plan. The provisions of the Act of 1957 are neither superseded nor made redundant by the provisions of the Master Plan 2021. What then, be the conclusion? It is that while Clause 7.6.1 of Master Plan 2021 does protect, atleast for the present act of sub-division of the plots, it affords no protection to the constructions raised on the sub-divided plots without or in violation of the sanctioned plans. thereforee, no case for de-sealing of such buildings is made out. However, if in any given case it is found that the building or construction raised on a sub-divided plot or any part thereof is in terms of the Municipal and building bye laws and yet has been sealed the same shall be de-sealed. With these directions, the writ petitions are dismissed.