This is especially important in the aftermath of the notification allowing de-sealing of commercial premises that were earlier sealed on the court’s directive, the Special Bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat observed.

Pointing out the “glaring difference of opinion” taken by the Corporation in the past and its views now, the Bench asked it to furnish an affidavit “explaining its stand” within three weeks.

Earlier, Ranjeet Kumar, the amicus curiae (advocate assisting the court), pointed to the reported difference between the monitoring committee and the MCD and submitted that despite the civic body kept dithering on resuming sealing of properties in Delhi’s villages despite the committee’s green signal.

Kumar urged the apex court to clarify the issue with regard to urbanised villages before the MCD starts de-sealing in these areas following their January 30 notification authorising de-sealing. He told the court that the MCD now claims there is no difference between urban or rural villages, and that protection granted to rural villages would automatically also extend to urbanised villages.

Kumar cited a note from then MCD Commissioner Rakesh Mehta in which he pointed out that once a village is notified as an ‘urban village’, it ceases to be part of abadi area. This meant, the amicus told the court, that protection granted to village abadi areas was not to be extended to urbanised villages. But now, amicus curiae Kumar submitted, the civic body contends that even urbanised village areas are protected under the Act, intended to provide protection to certain category of areas from sealing and demolition.

According to the MCD, even Masterplan 2021 also does not differentiate between rural or urbanised villages.

The court was also informed of the Chief Town Planner’s opinion on February 8, 2007 when he had also indicated that land cannot be used for non-residential purpose even in abadi or lal dora areas.