# M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2020] 10 S.C.R. 718
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-08-14
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, B. R. Gavai, Krishna Murari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-c-mehta-v-union-of-india-ors-34492
- **Pages:** 73

## Headnote

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Present writ petition
was filed in 1985 concerning issues like environment in Delhi,
shifting of heavy industries, misuse of premises (including
unauthorized construction) etc. - Supreme Court appointed
Monitoring Committee in 2006 to put restraint on misuse of the
residential premises for unauthorized/commercial purpose -
However, Monitoring Committee acting on a letter written by SDM
also sealed residential premises on private land not used for
commercial purpose - Propriety of - Held: Monitoring Committee
could not have acted based on any such letter - It is apparent from
the various orders passed by this Court and reports of the Monitoring
Committee from time to time that it was never authorized to take
action against the residential premises not being used for commercial
purposes - It was appointed only to check the misuse of residential
properties for commercial purposes - Later, it was also directed to
look into encroachment and unauthorized colonies on the public
land - At no point in time, Monitoring Committee was empowered
by this Court to act vis-à-vis the purely residential premises on private
land - If there is unauthorized construction or deviation, the requisite
provisions are under the 1957 Act - Monitoring Committee could
not have sealed the residential premises not misused for commercial
purpose as done vide Report No.149, nor directed their demolition
- Report No.149, other connected reports and entire action of
sealing pursuant thereto is quashed - Demolition notices also
quashed - Properties sealed as per Report No.149 be de-sealed
and possession restored to the owners - Constitution of India -
Article 300A - Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Delhi Laws (Special
Provisions) Act, 2006.
[2020] 10 S.C.R. 718
718
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Monitoring Committee was appointed and
empowered by this Court to take action within the powers
conferred. In the teeth of various statutes, it would act strictly
within the four corners of the powers conferred on it by this Court.
When the various orders passed by this Court from time to time,
before the constitution of the Monitoring Committee, are
considered it is found that this Court at no point in time has
empowered the Monitoring Committee to take action with
respect to residential premises not used for commercial purpose.
This Court initially passed an order on 7.5.2004 and constituted
the Monitoring Committee comprising of (i) Chief Secretary of
Delhi, (ii) Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (iii) Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and (iv) Vice-Chairman of Delhi
Development Authority. It was ordered that Monitoring
Committee would be responsible for the stoppage of illegal
industrial activities. The Monitoring Committee was constituted
by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2006 in M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 399. The only
question for consideration of this Court was the misuse of the
residential premises for illegal or commercial purposes. It is clear
from the order dated 16.2.2006 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
that this Court noted unauthorized construction but appointed
the Monitoring Committee to put a restraint on the misuse of
the residential premises for the unauthorized/commercial
purpose. Pursuant to the order dated 16.2.2006, the Monitoring
Committee was formed on 24.3.2006. The court again emphasized
that its order should be carried out in letter and spirit in the case
of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India reported in (2006) 3 SCC 429
passed on 24.3.2006. This Court directed to prevent misuse of
the property in accordance with the previous order to mean that
residential premises/ area should not be used for commercial
purposes. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court
on 24.4.2018 for the constitution of the Special Task Force, an
Office Memorandum dated 25.4.2018 was issued, which was not
with respect to the conferral of powers on the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,877 of 157,698. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39877 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
M.C. MEHTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985)
AUGUST 14, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, B. R. GAVAI AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Present writ petition
was filed in 1985 concerning issues like environment in Delhi,
shifting of heavy industries, misuse of premises (including
unauthorized construction) etc. - Supreme Court appointed
Monitoring Committee in 2006 to put restraint on misuse of the
residential premises for unauthorized/commercial purpose -
However, Monitoring Committee acting on a letter written by SDM
also sealed residential premises on private land not used for
commercial purpose - Propriety of - Held: Monitoring Committee
could not have acted based on any such letter - It is apparent from
the various orders passed by this Court and reports of the Monitoring
Committee from time to time that it was never authorized to take
action against the residential premises not being used for commercial
purposes - It was appointed only to check the misuse of residential
properties for commercial purposes - Later, it was also directed to
look into encroachment and unauthorized colonies on the public
land - At no point in time, Monitoring Committee was empowered
by this Court to act vis-à-vis the purely residential premises on private
land - If there is unauthorized construction or deviation, the requisite
provisions are under the 1957 Act - Monitoring Committee could
not have sealed the residential premises not misused for commercial
purpose as done vide Report No.149, nor directed their demolition
- Report No.149, other connected reports and entire action of
sealing pursuant thereto is quashed - Demolition notices also
quashed - Properties sealed as per Report No.149 be de-sealed
and possession restored to the owners - Constitution of India -
Article 300A - Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Delhi Laws (Special
Provisions) Act, 2006.
[2020] 10 S.C.R. 718
718
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Monitoring Committee was appointed and
empowered by this Court to take action within the powers
conferred. In the teeth of various statutes, it would act strictly
within the four corners of the powers conferred on it by this Court.
When the various orders passed by this Court from time to time,
before the constitution of the Monitoring Committee, are
considered it is found that this Court at no point in time has
empowered the Monitoring Committee to take action with
respect to residential premises not used for commercial purpose.
This Court initially passed an order on 7.5.2004 and constituted
the Monitoring Committee comprising of (i) Chief Secretary of
Delhi, (ii) Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (iii) Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and (iv) Vice-Chairman of Delhi
Development Authority. It was ordered that Monitoring
Committee would be responsible for the stoppage of illegal
industrial activities. The Monitoring Committee was constituted
by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2006 in M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 399. The only
question for consideration of this Court was the misuse of the
residential premises for illegal or commercial purposes. It is clear
from the order dated 16.2.2006 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
that this Court noted unauthorized construction but appointed
the Monitoring Committee to put a restraint on the misuse of
the residential premises for the unauthorized/commercial
purpose. Pursuant to the order dated 16.2.2006, the Monitoring
Committee was formed on 24.3.2006. The court again emphasized
that its order should be carried out in letter and spirit in the case
of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India reported in (2006) 3 SCC 429
passed on 24.3.2006. This Court directed to prevent misuse of
the property in accordance with the previous order to mean that
residential premises/ area should not be used for commercial
purposes. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court
on 24.4.2018 for the constitution of the Special Task Force, an
Office Memorandum dated 25.4.2018 was issued, which was not
with respect to the conferral of powers on the Monitoring
Committee, but of the Special Task Force. The Monitoring
Committee was authorized to take care of the unauthorized
colonies, and the Special Task Force was directed to remove the
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
encroachments from the public roads and public streets. This
Court considered Report No.114 and thereby had passed certain
orders. Report No.114 of 2018 is related to unauthorized
constructions and commercial activities in 1797 unauthorized
colonies. Thus, the order of this Court was confined to the
unauthorized colonies and commercial activities mentioned in the
report as to encroachment on the public land. This Court
specifically dealt with in several orders the questions relating to
power and the purpose for which the Monitoring Committee had
been appointed. Matter of encroachment is a matter of concern,
but the Monitoring Committee can act within the four corners of
powers conferred upon it and purpose for which the court
appointed the Monitoring Committee. It cannot exceed its powers
and take any action beyond its authorization by the court. [Paras
17-19 (i), (ii), (vi), 20, 31, 32, 36 and 43][732-C-E; 733-A-B; 735C; 743-E-F; 744-F; 760-D; 761-C-D; 763-A-B; 766-G]
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC
399 : [2006] 2 SCR 264; M. C. Mehta v. Union of India
reported in (2006) 3 SCC 429 - referred to.
1.2 It is apparent from the various orders passed by this
Court from time to time and from the various reports of the
Monitoring Committee that it was never authorized by this Court
to take action against the residential premises that were not
being used for commercial purposes. It was appointed only to
check the misuser of the residential properties for commercial
purposes. After that, this Court directed that the Monitoring
Committee should also look into the matter of "encroachment
on the public land" and "unauthorized colonies" that have come
up on the public land and were wholly unauthorized without
sanction. At no point in time, this Court had empowered the
Monitoring Committee to act vis-à-vis to the purely residential
premises. The power of sealing of property carries civil
consequences. A person can be deprived of the property by
following a procedure in accordance with law. The Monitoring
Committee is not authorized to take action concerning the
residential premises situated on the private land. If there is
unauthorized construction or in case of deviation, the requisite
provisions are under the DMC Act, such as sections 343, 345,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
721
347(A), 347(B). The mode of action and adjudication under the
Act is provided including appellate provisions and that of the
Tribunal. It would not be appropriate to the Monitoring
Committee to usurp statutory powers and act beyond authority
conferred upon it by the Court. The Monitoring Committee could
not have sealed the residential premises, which were not misused
for the commercial purpose as done vide Report No.149, nor it
could have directed the demolition of those residential properties.
[Paras 85, 86][782-H; 783-A-E]
1.3 Article 300A of the Constitution provides that nobody
can be deprived of the property and right of residence otherwise
in the manner prescribed by law. When the statute prescribes a
mode, the property's deprivation cannot be done in other modes
since this Court did not authorize the Committee to take action
in the matter. It is quite apparent that particularly when the
Monitoring Committee is not empowered to take action, the
incumbents could not have been deprived of the due process of
protection in accordance with law. As against the action of the
Monitoring Committee, no appeal lies elsewhere. Even High
Court is not authorized to entertain any matter and scrutinize its
action, such is the drastic step taken by this Court by way of an
exceptional measure in public interest, and it is confined to the
misuse of residential property for commercial purpose and
encroachments and unauthorized construction on the public land,
roads. [Paras 87, 88][783-E-F; 788-E-F]
State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC
77 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 1; K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd v.
State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1 : [2011] 13 SCR
636; T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member, (2006)
8 SCC 502 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 534; State of U. P. v.
Manohar (2005) 2 SCC 126 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR
911; Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of
U. P. & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 354 : [2011] 12 SCR 191;
Ramchandra Ravindra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal
Corporation (2017) 1 SCC 667 : [2016] 9 SCR 373;
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial
Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 705 :
[2007] 6 SCR 799; State of Gujarat v. Shantilal
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
Mangaldas & Ors., (1969) 1 SCC 509 : [1969] 3 SCR
341; Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P)
Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 517;
Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai
Bhimaji Dawkher (2013) 5 SCC 627 : [2013] 2 SCR
664 - relied on.
1.4 After going through the report of the Monitoring
Committee and other reports which have been relied upon by
the Amicus Curiae, there is no scintilla of doubt that the
Monitoring Committee in the past at any point of time did not
seal any residential premises being used for residential purposes,
situated on the private land nor it could have ordered demolition.
The 'caption' of the various reports of Monitoring Committee
i.e. "PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE MONITORING
COMMITTEE
FOR
SEALING
OF
COMMERCIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES" makes it
absolutely clear that Monitoring Committee did not entertain any
doubt about the purpose for which it was constituted. Apart from
that, it was authorized by subsequent orders to act with respect
to unauthorized construction on the public land and roads that
too, which violated the MPD-2021. The alternative submission
was raised that the Monitoring Committee acted bonafidely at
the instance of the letter written by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
This Court is of the opinion that the Monitoring Committee could
not have acted based on any such letter. It was not permissible
for the Monitoring Committee to act in the matter. May be that it
acted under some confusion created by the letter. Be that as it
may. This Court does not want to go further into the matter of
bona fide. However, it is apparent that its action was beyond the
purpose for which it had been appointed. This Court is not going
into the merits of the other submissions, whether the premises
are authorized or unauthorized, can be regularized or not,
compounding can be done, or whether there is any deviation made.
The report of the Monitoring Committee and findings recorded
by it are of no use as it had no such authority to go into the various
questions. This Court did not appoint the Monitoring Committee
concerning each and every residential building on private land
not misused for commercial purposes and to deal with the same.
In the present matter, this Court itself is monitoring the matter
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
723
for a limited public purpose. It has not taken away the powers of
statutory authorities under the Act concerning other matters
except specified in the order. [Paras 89-91][788-G-H; 789-A-F]
1.5 Report No.149 and other reports submitted
subsequently in connection with Report No.149 and entire action
of sealing pursuant thereto is quashed. Notices issued directing
demolition where the matter was being heard by this Court and
the Monitoring Committee had no power to look into the matter
and to take any action are also quashed. The property sealed as
per Report No.149 be de-sealed, and possession be restored to
the owners forthwith. [Para 93][789-G-H]
A. R Antulay v. R. S. Nayak & Anr. (1988) 2 SCC 602 :
[1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1; Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra
(1995) 6 SCC 447 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 89; Prem
Chand Garg v. Executing Commissioner U.P., AIR 1963
SC 996 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 885; SCBA v. Union of
India (1998) 4 SCC 409 : [1998] 2 SCR 795; Arif
Hameed v. State of J & K, (1989) 2 Suppl. SCC 364 :
[1989] 3 SCR 19 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1
referred to
Para 10
[1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 89
referred to
Para 10
[1963] Suppl. SCR 885
referred to
Para 10
[1998] 2 SCR 795
referred to
Para 10
[1989] 3 SCR 19
referred to
Para 10
[2006] 2 SCR 264
referred to
Para 19
(2006) 3 SCC 429
referred to
Para 20
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 1
relied on
Para 87
[2011] 13 SCR 636
relied on
Para 87
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 534
 relied on
Para 87
[2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 911
 relied on
Para 87
[2011] 12 SCR 191
relied on
Para 87
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
[2016] 9 SCR 373
relied on
Para 87
[2007] 6 SCR 799
relied on
Para 87
[1969] 3 SCR 341
relied on
Para 87
[2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 517
relied on
Para 87
[2013] 2 SCR 664
relied on
Para 87
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
4677 of 1985.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
With
W.P.(C) No. 266, 263, 264, 450, 464, 470, 569, 563, 610 Of 2006,
W.P.(C) No. 212 & 229 Of 2008, W.P.(C) No. 144 of 2009 and SLP(C)
No. 33454 Of 2018.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sanjay Jain, ASGs, Anil
Grover, AAG, Haryana, Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Advs.
(ACs.), Wasim A. Qadri, Mukul Rohatgi, R. C. Mishra, Sanjiv Sen,
Siddharth Luthra, Dhruv Mehta, Nalin Kohli, Rakesh
K. Khanna, Sr. Advs., A.D.N. Rao, (AC), D. L. Chidanada, Ms. Suhasini
Sen, SS Rebello, Rajat Nair, Aankhi Ghosh, Rajesh Kr. Singh, Raj Bahadur
Yadav, B. V. Balram Das, Gaurav Mitra, Nikhil Rohotgi, Aman Gupta,
Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ms. Ananya Mishra, Llin Saraswat, Dr. Charu
Mathur, Ms. Garima Prashad, G.S. Oberoi, Ms. Mrinalini Sengupta, Akraj
Kumar, Padmesh Mishra, Praveen Swarup, Ajay Bansal, Soumo Palit,
Kanishik Chaudhary, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Rahul
Khurana, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Ms. Anil Katiyar, D.N. Goburdhun, Alok
Gupta, Naveen Kumar, Vijay Panjwani, Ejaz Maqbool, Abhimanyu
Bhandari, Ms. Roohina Dua, Cheitanya Madan, Ms. Akriti Chaubey,
Ms. Aishwarya Sarkar, Ms. Shubhangni Jain, Pankaj Singhal, Yashraj
Singh Deora, Rahul Narayan, Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh
Mishra, Yashraj Singh Deora, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Sanjana Nangia,
Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Rohan Thawani, Hardeep Singh Anand, Ms. Prerna
Mehta, Tileshwar Prasad, Naresh Aditya Madhav, Ms. Rachana Joshi
Issar, Siddhesh Kotwal, Divyansh Tiwari, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Karuna
Nundy, Utsav Mukherjee, Dipanshu Joshi, Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Usha
Nandini V., Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya (for M/s Saharya &
Co.), Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma Ms. Sheena Taqui,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
725
Kshitij Vaibhav, Ms. Suwarna Dubey, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Anil Katiyar,
D.N. Goburdhun, Naveen Kumar, Ejaz Maqbool, Rohan Kharbanda,
Mushtaq Ahmad, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, V. K. Verma, S. Chandra Shekhar,
Ms. Prasanthi Prasad, Prakash Kumar Singh, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal,
Abhinav Mukerji, Surya Kant, M/S. Law Associates, Prashant Bhushan,
Hardeep Singh Anand, M. C. Dhingra, Manu Shanker Mishra, Prakash
Kumar Singh, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, M/s. Parekh & Co., Pravir
Choudhary, Md. Farman, Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Tejaswi Kumar
Pradhan, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Sanjeev Anand, Ms. Uttara
Babbar, Abhay Kumar, Satyendra Kumar, Sunil Kumar Jain,
Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Prashant Chaudhary, Suresh Chandra
Tripathy, P. Parmeswaran, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Amita Gupta,
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Devendra Singh, Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, Nikilesh
Ramachandran, D. N. Goburdhan, Abhijit Sengupta, Ms. Binu Tamta, T.
L. Garg, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Surya Kant, Tarun Johri, Avijit Bhattacharjee,
Ashwani Kumar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Sanjay Kapur, Sudhir
Naagar, A. Venayagam Balan, S. Chandra Shekhar, Shiv Prakash
Pandey, Ms. Manju Jetley, Harish Pandey, Shekhar Kumar, Annam D.
N. Rao, Satish Aggarwal, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms.
Prasanthi Prasad, Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Ajit Sharma, Ms. Prerna
Mehta, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, Harsh V. Surana,
Raj Kamal, Himinder Lal, M. P. Shorawala, Arvind Gupta, Abhas Kumar,
Vivek Narayan Sharma, Milind Kumar, Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Ajay Kumar
Singh, Gagan Gupta, M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, Yoginder Handoo,
Jasmeet Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, T. Mahipal, M/
S. Karanjawala & Co., Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rajat Joseph, Ravinder
Kumar Yadav, Shekhar Prit Jha, O.P. Bhadani, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ejaz
Maqbool, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Anand Mishra, Ramesh Kumar
Mishra, Ms. S. Janani, Ashok Anand, Karunakar Mahalik, Naveen R.
Nath, Vishnu Sharma, M. M. Kashyap, A. Raghunath, Ms. K. V. Bharathi
Upadhyaya, Ms. Rajani Ohri Lal, Rakesh Mishra, Pranaya Kumar
Mohapatra, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Sanjeev
Anand, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Abhay Kumar, Satyendra Kumar, Sunil
Kumar Jain, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Prashant Chaudhary, Suresh
Chandra Tripathy, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Ms. Ruby
Singh Ahuja, Devendra Singh, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Abhijit Sengupta,
Ms. Binu Tamta, T. L. Garg, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Tarun Johri, Avijit
Bhattacharjee, Ashwani Kumar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Sanjay
Kapur, Sudhir Naagar, A. Venayagam Balan, S. Chandra Shekhar, Shiv
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
Prakash Pandey, Harish Pandey, Shekhar Kumar, Annam D.N. Rao,
Satish Aggarwal, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Prasanthi
Prasad, Ms. Prerna Mehta, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury,
Raj Kamal, Himinder Lal, Arvind Gupta, Vivek Narayan Sharma, Milind
Kumar, Ajay Kumar Singh, Gagan Gupta, M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates,
Yoginder Handoo, Jasmeet Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prakash Ranjan
Nayak, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J.
IN RE: ISSUE RELATING TO JURISDICTION OF THE
MONITORING COMMITTEE
1. We are dealing with the authority of the "Monitoring Committee
to seal the residential premises on the private land" particularly when
they are not being used for the "commercial purpose". Whether the
Monitoring Committee could have sealed these residential premises is
the only question which we are examining in this order.
2. Report No.149 dated 2.4.2019 submitted by the Monitoring
Committee concerning specific unauthorized constructions allegedly
carried out in the Vasant Kunj and Rajokari area. These constructions
were not on public land. The respective persons owned the land, and the
Committee had submitted that a letter was received from the SDM,
Mehrauli on 22.2.2019 regarding unauthorized construction in Vasant
Kunj, Delhi.
3. A reply was filed on behalf of the residents that various
residential premises were sealed where constructions were made long
back. There was no authority with the Monitoring Committee to seal
purely residential premises. It was pointed out that their structure was in
consonance with the Master Plan (MPD-2021) within Low Density
Residential Area (LDRA) modified vide Notification No.S.O.1199 (E)
dated 10.5.2013 and Notification No.S.O.1744 (E) dated 18.6.2013.
Reliance was placed on the various by laws/statutory provisions. It was
submitted that the Monitoring Committee was not authorized to take
action, and the residential premises should be de-sealed. It was also
pointed out that compounding has been made in some cases. The
structure should not be demolished, given the provisions of the applicable
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
727
acts, by-laws, and policy. It has to be regularized for which prayer was
pending before concerned authorities.
4. It was further contended that it is a residential area, farmhouses
were notified as Low-Density Residential Areas, and the premises were
used as residential premises. They are in accord with MPD-2021.
"Mehrauli" is an urbanized village. The Monitoring Committee was not
empowered to seal the premises used for residential purposes. It was
permissible to raise the construction for the use of a residence as provided
under Clause 4.4.3 G of MPD-2021. Reliance has also been placed on
NDRA Policy.
5. We have heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy and
Shri A.D.N. Rao, learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Rakesh Khanna, Shri
Siddharth Luthra, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri R.C. Mishra, Shri Nalin Kohli,
Shri Wasim A. Qadri, Shri Sanjiv Sen, learned senior counsel, Shri Tushar
Mehta, learned Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Addl.
Solicitor General, Shri D.N. Goburdhan, Shri Naveen Kumar, Ms. Karuna
Nundy, learned counsel and other learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
6. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae with his usual vigour
urged that Writ Petition (C) No.4677 of 1985 was filed in this Court
regarding environment in Delhi, shifting of heavy industries, noxious
industries, stopping of all mining in Aravali hills in and around Delhi
including demolition of colonies built on forest land, misuse of premises
(misuse includes unauthorized construction), i.e., construction without
sanction, lack of civic amenities and the need for their upgradation, etc.
This Court appointed the Monitoring Committee in the year 2006. Various
orders have been referred to submit that the Monitoring Committee is
entitled to inspect premises in which any illegal construction has been
made. This Court restored its power on 6.12.2017. A Special Task Force
was set up to ensure that the order of the court and applicable bylaws
were implemented. LDRA Policy in derogation of the MPD-2021 is
notified on 7.2.2007.
7. Learned Amicus attracted the attention of this Court to orders
dated 24.4.2018, 8.5.2018, 15.5.2018, 18.5.2018, 24.5.2018, and various
other orders and certain reports, which we will refer later. He has pointed
out that the Special Task Force was constituted on 25.4.2018. The
Monitoring Committee has the power to seal unauthorized construction,
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
728
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
and regularization thereof cannot be allowed. He has attracted the
attention of this Court to the O.M. dated 23.5.2018 issued by the
Government of India containing an action plan for monitoring of all
construction activities in Delhi and fixing responsibility in case of violations
of MPD-2021for unauthorized encroachments and other illegal
construction activities.
8. Learned Amicus Curiae also argued that the Monitoring
Committee is authorized to see construction with sanction plan or
construction contrary to sanction plan. Alternatively, it was submitted by
the learned Amicus that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that
the Monitoring Committee was not entrusted with the power concerning
residential premises when they were not being used for "commercial
purpose" as the power of sealing was exercised (as per Report No.149)
bonafidely on the request made by the SDM and any order, which may
be passed and ordered to be prospective in operation.
9. Ms. Ashwariya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Environment
submitted that the Monitoring Committee is entitled to inspect the premises
where encroachments are there on public land. Attention has been invited
to this Court's order dated 3.1.2012, which was recalled vide judgment
and order dated 15.12.2017. This Court on 15.12.2017 ordered the
Monitoring Committee to continue to work as it was doing before 3.1.2012.
This Court constituted the Monitoring Committee on 23.4.2006 for the
limited purpose of addressing the use of "residential premises for
commercial purpose". Despite the limited mandate to the Monitoring
Committee, it illegally sealed other premises. A Special Task Force has
been constituted as per order dated 24.4.2018 to remove the
encroachments on public roads, public streets, and pedestrian street,
and it was for the Monitoring Committee to suggest to the Special Task
Force the areas where immediate action was required to be taken
concerning aforesaid aspect. The Special Task Force was constituted
under section 5(3) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. Thus, it is a
statutory body. It has the task of overseeing the implementation of the
applicable laws regarding illegal constructions, encroachment on public
land, public parks, parking places, roads, pavements, etc. Special Task
Force is taking adequate action as and when a violation is reported.
10. Shri D.N. Goburdhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Government of NCT of Delhi, has raised the following arguments:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
729
a. That the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short, "the
DMC Act") is a complete code by itself. The Delhi Municipal Corporation
is a statutory body which cannot be deprived of its functions. He has
also attracted the attention of this Court to the Building Regulations and
to sections 334 and 335 of the DMC Act relating to sanctions, additions,
alterations, and its power to take action in appropriate cases. He submitted
that the DMC Act is a complete code by itself as it provides how the
sealing is to be done, when it is to be enforced, and in case of its failure,
the remedy is provided under section 490. Statutory appeals are provided
under the DMC Act to the Appellate Tribunal and the Administrator. A
complete regulatory mechanism is provided for the sealing operation of
properties. Thus, it cannot be deprived to exercise its powers conferred
by the Monitoring Committee under the DMC Act.
b. This Court appointed the Monitoring Committee on 16.2.2006
only to prevent misuse of residential premises for commercial use and
not with respect to residential premises used for residential purposes.
Once the Monitoring Committee does the sealing, no statutory appeal
lies before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under section 347(A) and
347(B) of the Act. The Statutory Appeals were transferred to the
Monitoring Committee, which ordered the sealing of the premises. The
principle of natural justice was thus thrown to winds. The order appointing
the Monitoring Committee was for limited purpose and power was passed
under Article 142 of the Constitution. The order too deserves to be
recalled in view of the decisions of this Court in A. R Antulay vs. R. S.
Nayak & Anr. (1988) 2 SCC 602, Bonkya vs. State of Maharashtra
(1995) 6 SCC 447, Prem Chand Garg v. Executing Commissioner
U.P., AIR 1963 SC 996 and SCBA vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC
409.
c. That the executive, legislative and judicial functions of the
statutory bodies are demarcated under the Constitution, and statutory
provisions cannot be taken away by the Monitoring Committee. Reliance
is placed on Arif Hameed v. State of J & K, (1989) Supp. [2] SCC 364.
d. The legislature has conferred statutory power to seal or demolish
on the Municipal Corporation, and Monitoring Committee cannot exercise
its power in total abrogation to the powers of the statutory bodies.
11. Shri Rakesh Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the LAC's Federation of Delhi, submitted that this Court on
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
730
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
15.12.2017 passed judgment and order with respect to sealing of the
residential premises used for commercial purposes in Delhi. The
Monitoring Committee has exercised power unauthorizedly. The orders
were passed in order to stop the unauthorized commercial use of the
land earmarked for residential purposes, as provided in the Zonal Plan.
The Monitoring Committee without power sealed the premises, which
were in the commercial area for commercial use. He has attracted our
attention to certain provisions of the Master Plan. Concerning the
aforesaid aspects, we do not propose to deal with it in the instant order.
We propose to deal only with the limited question whether the Monitoring
Committee is empowered by this Court to seal the residential premises.
We leave the question of commercial plots raised by Shri Khanna to be
dealt with separately.
12. Shri Khanna further argued that the Monitoring Committee
had no power to seal purely residential premises. He has attracted our
attention to this Court's order by which it was constituted, and various
other judgments and orders passed in this regard. He has argued that
the Monitoring Committee kept quiet, pursuant to the query made by this
Court on 7.5.2019 as to whether in past, before Report No.149 was
submitted, the Monitoring Committee sealed the residential premises
which were not being used for commercial purposes. No past instance
was given by the Monitoring Committee regarding sealing of residential
premises used for residential purposes, particularly when it was not made
on public land. He has also argued with respect to LDRA Policy and as
to permissible regularization.
13. Shri Nalin Kohli, learned senior counsel has taken this Court
through various orders passed by this Court and the Report of the
Monitoring Committee to submit that this Court appointed the Monitoring
Committee for the limited purpose of checking commercial misuse of
the residential properties. At no point in time, this Court authorized the
Monitoring Committee to seal the residential premises used for the
residential purposes that too situated on private land. Thus, the action of
sealing such houses is unwarranted and illegal.
14. Shri Naveen Kumar, learned counsel, has invited our attention
to the order dated 7.5.2019. This Court sought the Monitoring Committee
to specify with respect to its power conferred by the court and secondly,
any prior example where the Monitoring Committee sealed such premises.
The Monitoring Committee referred to the orders dated 23.11.2006,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
731
12.2.2007, 9.3.2007, and 10.4.2007 to justify its action. It was argued
that the orders relied upon by the Committee are not at all relevant for
sealing of such premises. The Monitoring Committee was appointed
only to prevent commercial misuse of the residential properties. The
subsequent orders indicate that it was authorized to deal with the
encroachment and unauthorized colonies on public land.
15. On behalf of the incumbents whose property has been sealed
as per the report No.149, similar submissions have been raised. The
Monitoring Committee was given limited powers, which was divested
on 30.4.2012. Later vide order dated 6.12.2017, the Monitoring
Committee was restored with the power it exercised earlier. A Special
Task Force had been constituted on 25.4.2018 pursuant to the order
passed by this Court.
16. Ms. Karuna Nundy, learned counsel, argued that under Article
300-A of the Constitution, a person cannot be deprived of its property
otherwise than the due procedure of law, is supported by series of
judgments of this Court. When the Monitoring Committee is not
empowered to deal with such residential premises, it could not have
acted. The detailed procedure is provided under the DMC Act along
with the Appellate Tribunal under sections 347A and 347B of the DMC
Act. The Monitoring Committee, unless specifically authorized by this
Court, could not violate the procedure under the DMC Act. Reliance
has been placed by the learned counsel on the various decisions to be
referred to later.
(i) Particularly when the Monitoring Committee is not empowered
to take any such action, no appeal lies against the action of the Monitoring
Committee. Only it hears a representation. Not even the High Court can
interfere in the functioning of the Monitoring Committee.
(ii) Even with respect to the encroachment on public roads, public
streets, and pedestrian streets, the Special Task Force is authorized to
take action. Thus, the Monitoring Committee's power after the
constitution of Special Task Force is further restricted, and it is for the
Monitoring Committee to suggest to the Special Task Force with respect
to the encroachment on the public land, roads, and public places.
(iii) The range of remedies available to the owner of the property
in the residential premises' occupation cannot be deprived of by the
Monitoring Committee. The provisions regarding demolition and stoppage
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
of buildings and works in certain cases are contained in section 343 of
the DMC Act, section 345 deals with power of the Commissioner to
require alteration of the work; section 347A provides for an appeal before
the Appellate Tribunal, section 347B deals with appeals against certain
orders and notices issued under the Act and section 347E deals with the
bar of jurisdiction of courts. Once the statutory right is conferred, it
cannot be dealt with by the Monitoring Committee until and unless it is
authorized.
DISCUSSION:
17. The Monitoring Committee was appointed and empowered
by this Court to take action within the powers conferred. In the teeth of
various statutes, it would act strictly within the four corners of the powers
conferred on it by this Court.
18. When we consider the various orders passed by this Court
from time to time, before the constitution of the Monitoring Committee,
we find that this Court at no point in time has empowered the Monitoring
Committee to take action with respect to residential premises not used
for commercial purpose. This Court initially passed an order on 7.5.2004
and constituted the Monitoring Committee comprising of (i) Chief
Secretary of Delhi, (ii) Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (iii) Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and (iv) Vice-Chairman of Delhi
Development Authority. It was ordered that Monitoring Committee would
be responsible for the stoppage of illegal industrial activities. The order
dated 7.5.2004 is extracted hereunder:
"Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal pronounced the
judgment of the Court issuing directions in terms of the signed
judgment.
A Monitoring Committee comprising (i) Chief Secretary of
Delhi (ii) Commissioner of Police, Delhi (iii) Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and, (iv) Vice-Chairman of Delhi
Development Authority has been appointed. This Committee would
be responsible for stoppage of illegal industrial activity. It would,
however, be open to the aforesaid members of the Monitoring
Committee to appoint responsible officers subordinate to them to
oversee and ensure compliance of the directions contained in the
judgment.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
733
The first Progress Report by the Committee shall be filed
by 31st August, 2004 and thereafter it shall be filed at least once
in a period of every two months."
19. (i) The Monitoring Committee was constituted by this Court
vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2006 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 399. Following is the relevant portion:
"1. In respect of large number of immovable 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 secure the implementation of laws and protect fundamental
rights of the citizens, various orders were passed from time to
time.
2. This Court has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental
rights 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 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.
3. Considering such large-scale flagrant violations, this Court had
to prioritise 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 also issued for shifting of
heavy and large industries as also some extensive industries. For
shifting polluting industries had to be given topmost priority. Later,
directions were issued for shifting of other extensive industries
considering the continued unauthorised use contrary to master
plan and zonal plan, by those industries as well as some other
industries continuing in residential/non-conforming areas.
5. With regard to commercial use of premises in residential areas,
it has been more than three years i.e. 30-9-2002 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 apparent from the orders dated 31-7M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
2001 and 20-2-2002. By order dated 31-7-2001 passed in News
Item AQFMY v. Central Pollution Control Board1 the Court
directed that:
"MCD 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 buildings in the residential areas for
commercial purposes and in the construction of commercial
buildings in residential areas where only residential usage is
permitted."
6. Again on 20-2-2002, the order dated 31-7-2001 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 purposes as has been
directed by this Court's order dated 31-7-2001. If no affidavit
is filed, the explanation in respect thereof should be given to
the Court by the Municipal Commissioner."
11. By the impugned judgment dated 31-5-2002, 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, was there 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 his human or
fundamental rights and that the power of sealing in relation to
misuse has been intentionally excluded from the provisions of the
two Acts. Later, some other matters were also decided by the
High Court following the Full Bench decision. Those judgments
are also under challenge."
(emphasis supplied)
Following questions were framed by this Court for consideration:
"13. The questions to be determined are:
A. Whether MCD under the DMC Act has power to seal the
premises in case of its misuser?
1 W.P. No.725 of 1994 dated 31-7-2001
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
735
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 illegally for commercial purposes.
14. In these matters, we are considering only the issue of misuser.
We are not considering the issue of unauthorised constructions."
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) It is apparent that the only question for consideration of this
Court was the misuse of the residential premises for illegal or commercial
purposes. In paragraph 14 (quoted above), this Court made it clear that
it did not consider the issue of unauthorized constructions. This Court
considered the plight of the residential areas in para 33 of the judgment,
where it noted large-scale conversion of residential premises for
commercial use, thus:
"33.