$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010221162026 + W.P.(C) 6772/2026 & CM APPL. 33278/2026 HARMALA KAUR GUPTA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Piyush Joshi, Ms. Vatsala Bhatia, Mr. Akshay Sharma, Ms. Amrita Dwivedi, Advs. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Deepal Goel, Adv. for R-1/MCD Mr. Abhishek Wadhwa, Adv. for R-2/ DDA Mr. Sudhir K Makkar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Saumya Gupta, Ms. Sanya C Oberoi, Advs. for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 17.08.2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other writ, order, or direction of similar nature quashing and setting aside the decision dated 06.01.2026 issued jointly by Respondent No.1 /Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Respondent This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:18 No.2/Delhi Development Authority;…” 2. For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice. 3. Mr. Goel, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1/ MCD, Mr. Wadhwa, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2/ DDA and Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 4. Arguments have been addressed and heard. 5. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 is the owner of First Floor, A-30, Eastern Wing, West End Colony, New Delhi and petitioner No.2 is the owner of Ground Floor & Basement, A-30, Eastern Wing, West End Colony, New Delhi. 6. The premises, owned by the petitioners who are senior citizens, is in a building on the Eastern Wing of a plot ad-measuring 1199 sq. yds. at A-30, West End Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter called the “plot”). 7. The plot where the flats of the petitioners are situated are on the eastern side of a plot of 599.5 sq. yards. Similarly, the respondent No. 3 is the owner of the 599.5 sq. yards on the western side of the plot. 8. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, dated 06.01.2026, which reads as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:18 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:18 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:18 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:18 9. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner is violative of M of plot under regulation requirement of a no 10. He further states th Development consultation and Government prescribed under Section 11A of the petitioners have not been afforded the opportu 11. Additionally, he states that if the impugned decision is accepted, the same would introduce a new scheme, where the co sanction of a building plan by filing a joint application even where the share in the property is undi Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that is violative of Master Plan of Delhi, 2021, which prohibits sub of plot under regulation No. 4.4.3 and has done away with the requirement of a no-objection certificate. He further states that only in terms of Section 11 evelopment Act, 1957 (“DD Act”), which includes consultation and reporting the modification/amendment to the Central Government, can a plot be subdivided. However, no prescribed under Section 11A of the DD Act has been undertaken and the petitioners have not been afforded the opportu Additionally, he states that if the impugned decision is accepted, the same would introduce a new scheme, where the co sanction of a building plan by filing a joint application even where the share in the property is undivided. , states that the said order which prohibits sub-division No. 4.4.3 and has done away with the at only in terms of Section 11A of the Delhi which includes mandatory public reporting the modification/amendment to the Central However, no procedure the DD Act has been undertaken and the petitioners have not been afforded the opportunity of being heard. Additionally, he states that if the impugned decision is accepted, the same would introduce a new scheme, where the co-owner may get sanction of a building plan by filing a joint application even where the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:18 12. He states that the decision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as it lays down a relaxation without laying down any intelligible criteria or guiding principle. 13. In a similar matter being W.P. (C) 9921/2022 titled Sanjeev Malhotra & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi a similar issue arose qua sanction of a building plan regarding property No. H-1/4, Model Town, Delhi. The single judge allowed the petition while holding at paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 as under: “8. At this stage, learned ASC for the respondent, on instructions, submits that in case the petitioners submit fresh proposal, the same would be considered in accordance with law, subject to MPD-2021 and UBBL-2016, without insisting on production of NOC from the co-owners. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the petitioners would claim only proportionate FAR, ground coverage and number of dwelling units, as applicable under law. He also submitted that any compliance required in terms of the letter dated 21.05.2022 would be made.” 14. Though the order was based on a concession given by the Additional Standing Counsel (“ASC”) for the MCD, the MCD challenged the said order dated 05.07.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 9921/2022, vide LPA No. 591/2023 on the ground that the ASC did not have the authority to give the concession. The Division Bench framed an issue, which reads as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:18 “6. We deliberated directing the Appellant to file an appropriate application seeking review of the impugned judgement before the learned Single Judge. However, as the issue involved in the appeal i.e., whether an owner of a portion of a property is required to obtain consent from other co-owners of the property for raising construction/ approval of building plan, is of considerable significance and would have wide ramifications, we have decided to entertain the appeal.” 15. On 30.10.2025, the Division Bench in the said LPA requested the Additional Solicitor General to appear and assist the Court. The paragraph Nos. 1 and 3 of the order dated 30.10.2025 reads as under: “1. On the request of this Court, Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General has entered appearance and assured to consider and take appropriate policy decision, in order to redress the grievances of large number of residents of New Delhi in terms of order dated 18.08.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the present Appeal. xxx 3. Furthermore, the Chairman, Delhi Development Authority and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi are also requested to hold a joint meeting to resolve the issues involved in the present Appeal.” 16. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the Hon’ble Division Bench disposed of LPA 591/2023 on 08.01.2026, relying the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:18 Court in Sharda Nath v. Delhi Administration & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 1161/2009) and the court recorded the joint decision of the Commissioner, MCD and the VC, DDA. The relevant paragraphs read as under: “8. With the constructive assistance of learned Counsel, a joint decision has been arrived at under the signatures of the Commissioner, MCD and the Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority on 6 January 2026, based on order dated 17 October 2019 passed by the Supreme Court in Sharda Nath v. Delhi Administration. The following paragraph from the order passed by the Supreme Court merits reproduction: “It would be thus permissible for the two parties to approach the South Delhi Municipal Corporation for sanction of plans in respect of their respective portions of the plot with FAR divided on the whole plot in proportion to the area vested with the two parties in the plot and to carry out construction accordingly. Each of the parties would be separately responsible for their portion of construction and violation, if any. Needless to say that for sanction of the plan ‘No Objection Certificate’ would not be recruited by any of the parties from the other party. On construction of the plot, the conveyance deed would be executed on payment of requisite charged separately for the two portions. This is so directed as without construction separate lease This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:18 deeds would not be permissible as per norms. Needless to say that for practical purposes the two parties would thus have separate liabilities and responsibilities in respect of the area vested therein.” 9. Predicated on the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court, the joint decision of the Commissioner, MCD and the VC, DDA concludes as under : “6. Discussion and Decision The matter has been discussed in detail in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (i) As long as the respective share of the co-owners is well defined in the plot as per the sale deed or title document or court judgment, there should not be any necessity for joint applications in such cases. (a) The separate buildings for the co-owners may be sanctioned in such cases subject, to stipulations that FAR and Ground coverage of all the Dwelling Units in all the buildings put together shall not exceed the applicable FAR and Ground Coverage of the single undivided plot. (b) Dwelling Units permissible for the entire plot and co-shares would enjoy the FAR and Ground Coverage in their Dwelling Units on proportionate basis of the total FAR and Ground Coverage, permissible for that plot. This would be in line with This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:18 laid down law by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of Master Plan-2021. (ii) However, if respective shares of the co-owners are not defined in the plot, that is to say, it is not clear which portion of the plot belongs to who co-owner, then all co-owners would have to apply jointly which will indicate after their mutual settlement of their respective share/portion in the plot.” 17. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned joint decision dated 06.01.2026 has been passed keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sharda Nath (Supra) as well as the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 591/2023 titled Sanjeev Malhotra & Anr (Supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court and the learned Division Bench have already deliberated on the issue and issued the directions as reproduced above. 18. The decision based upon the same and has attained finality. 19. Mr. Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent, has no objection to the order passed today. 20. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. JASMEET SINGH, J AUGUST 17, 2026/sp (corrected and released on 25.08.2026) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:18