This aspect has repeatedly been considered by our own High Court and one of the judgments relevant on this point is reported in B. T. Menghani v. D.D.A., . In this case also, the contention before the Full Bench was that the provisions of S. 14 of the Act are not attracted, in as much as no Zonal Development Plan has been prepared for the area in which commercial user is alleged. This argument was brushed aside by observing that the prosecution case, as laid in the complaint, was the violation of the Master Plan and not the Zonal Development Plan and the prohibition contained in S. 14 would be effective in any zone, if any of these plans had come into operation in such zone. It is not anomalous to say that the Master Plan has come into operation in the entire area, i.e., in all the zones and, therefore, invariably in each zone. The Full Bench further observed that if, therefore, there is a user of the land or building otherwise than in conformity with either the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan or any of them, after such a plan has come into operation, it will be actionable under sub-section (2) of S. 29 of the Act. As the area in question has been earmarked in the Master Plan for residential purpose and that such use was in contravention of the Master Plan and consequently in contravention of the provisions of S. 14 of the Act. This very view was reaffirmed in the judgment reported as R. P. Kapur v. D.D.A., 1976 Rajdhani 2nd 189 : (1976 Cri LJ 1285). In D.D.A. v. Principal Vocational Training College 2nd (1980) 2 Delhi 1082, a Division Bench of this Court held that the use of a residential building for an unpermitted user is not misuse of the building alone but misuse of the land as well. {Para 8}
9. The Supreme Court has also an occasion to deal with a similar question in the case reported as D.D.A. v. R. S. Bajwa, , and has gone to the extent of approving the Full Bench decision of B. T. Meghani's case . The relevant observation is :-
"The High Court has expressed the view, and it seems to us correctly too, that the inhibition contained in S. 14 comes into play after the coming into operation of any of the plans in these cases the Master Plan. On consideration of the other provisions of the Development Act it seems to have rightly opined that the Master plan may provide not only for user of land as distinguished from building in the various zones but also for the user of building on such lands. Since both the words, viz., "land" and "building" have been used in S. 14 it was an exercise in vain to find that the "land" in the context does not include "building", when the word "building" also has been used in the section. No person could use or permit to be used any building in the zone in which the Master Plan had come into operation otherwise than in conformity with such plan."
