07 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA 77/2009 SMT. AYODHYA DEVI & ORS. ... Appellant Through Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate. Mr. R.K. Singh, Advocate. versus D.D.A. &ANR. Respondent Through Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Advocate with Ms. Supriya Juneja, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER % 13.02.2009 Counsel for the appellant submits that permissible FAR is 150 and society has only utilized FAR of 86 and therefore the appellants who are flat owners on the first floor have, legal right to utilize the remaining FAR of 64. It is also stated that there are disputes between the owners of the flatjon the ground floor and on the first floor and the cooperative society is not willing to support the appellants i.e. flat owners of the first floor. 2. No one can claim individual right and construct on the basis of enhancement of FAR. How and in what manner FAR can be utilized Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified is for the cooperativesocietyto decide. Individualmember cannot carry out unauthorizedconstructionwithout permissionand consent of the cooperativesociety, otherwise there will be large scale of unauthorizedconstructionand each member will try to take march over others. This will result in confusion and inter se disputes betweenmemberswhich will be difficultto resolve. It will be contrary to objectand purposebehindacooperativesociety. 3. It is also apparentthat in spiteofnoticeissuedby DDA in 1997, unauthorizedconstructionhas gone on unabated. 4. The most disturbingfeature in the presentcase, as highlighted by learned single Judge in the judgmentdated 7th January, 2009, is the deliberateand intentionalconcealmentof facts in the writ petition relating to orders passed in C.C.P. Nos. 1388/2006and 1395/2006 holdingthat additionalFAR permittedby DDA is to be enjoyedby all membersofthe cooperativesocietyand not by someofthe individual members. The Court in these orders had noticedthat unauthorized constructionwas carriedout by only some of the members.The said order dated 8th January, 2008 passed in Contempt Petition Nos. 1388/2006and 1395/2006has been quoted in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment. The pleas raised by the appellants were 4 specifically rejected in the Order dated 8^"^ January, 2008. The writ petition No.6779/2008, in which the impugned judgment has been passed, was filed by same set of Advocates who had filed the aforesaid contempt petitions. 5. We entirely agree with the learned single Judge that the appellants herein were aware of the Order passed on 8*^ January, 2008 and the two contempt cases. Learned single Judge was justified in refusing to exercise his discretion, dismissing the writ petition and in imposing cost. The appeal is dismissed. FEBRUARY 13, 2009 NA/P / CHIEF JUSTICE "he SANJIV KHANNA, J.