Non-Reportable

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

O R D E R

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.

2

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)

3

......................................J. (R.V. RAVEENDRAN)

......................................J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

NEW DELHI February 20, 2009.

4