Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1856th meeting held on 19.02.2026.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1856th meeting held on 19.02.2026 were discussed.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the building plans (conceptually) at its meeting held on February 08, 2024, May 02, 2024 and September 19, 2024.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal (formal) at its meeting held on December 11, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for Group housing received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter No. OL-03122555138 dated December 16, 2025. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It has been observed that the submission has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing of previous observations of the Commission outlined in DUAC letter no. OL-03122555138 dated December 16, 2025.

A. EWS Block:

a) Discrepancies have been observed in the EWS block drawings. The 3D views indicate S+10 floors, whereas the section drawing shows S+11 floors. Since the submission is at the formal stage, all drawings, including plans, elevations, and sections, shall be corrected, corelated and reviewed to ensure consistency in the submission.

b) Only one lift has been proposed in the EWS block. As the building comprises 11 floors, provision of two lifts shall be ensured to facilitate adequate access, in accordance with the standards prescribed in the prevailing Building Bye-Laws.

B. Miscellaneous Observations:

a) An adequate number of end-to-end sections of the proposed scheme shall be submitted to clearly illustrate the overall design, including architectural elements, sun-shading devices, and other service components.

b) As the project is submitted at the formal stage, detailed longitudinal and cross-sections across the building and the site, along with elevations, shall be provided. Detailed façade/skin sections (enlarged scale) with material specifications shall also be submitted to understand the architectural treatment of the elevations. Further, a longitudinal site section shall be furnished to clearly demonstrate the functioning of the basement parking and its integration with the remaining basement areas.

c) The 3D views indicate the provision of screening louvres; however, the same are not reflected in the detailed floor plans of all buildings, including the EWS block. The drawings shall be revised to ensure consistency across all submitted documents. Further, adequate skin sections shall be provided to clearly illustrate the fixing details of the screening louvres, their integration with the balcony railings, and other relevant construction details.

d) The entry and exit of vehicles to and from the basement shall also be rationalised to ensure efficient and smoother functioning within the site. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

e) The terrace floor plan indicates an area earmarked for solar panels and services; however, their exact placement has not been shown appropriately. The precise location and layout of these elements shall be clearly indicated in the terrace plan and reflected in the corresponding 3D views.

f) It was observed that solar panels are proposed on the terrace floor with a pergola above, which may obstruct sunlight and affect their efficiency. The terrace is also proposed for recreational uses, including a volleyball court for residents. It is therefore suggested that clear-storey solar panels be installed on a well-designed structural frame above the pergola or at an appropriate location, integrated with the building design, subject to feasibility as per Building Bye-Laws, to enable effective use of the space below, facilitate maintenance, reduce heat load through shading, and improve overall aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

h) The Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. Any deviations in the artwork from the approved design must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before the commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, has discrepancies, and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations including communicated vide DUAC observation letter no:  OL-03122555138 dated December 16, 2025 and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals(formal/completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the Commission's available record.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (existing ground, first, second, and third floors, addition of a lift and internal changes on the first, second, and the third floors) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs, etc, the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not take into account the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions and alterations.

b) As the proposal pertains to additions and alterations to an existing building, the present condition shall be substantiated with an adequate number of internal and external photographs from all sides. Further, detailed plans of the existing structure shall be superimposed on the previously approved plans (regularised plans as indicated by the architect) and submitted along with the current proposal to make the submission self-explanatory.

Further, the architect in its report has indicated that:

“…..already regularised vide file no: 243/Reg/EE(B)CZ/2014 dated 04.03.2014….”

Regularised plans as indicated above by the architect shall be provided for understanding and official records.

c) It was observed that the proposed layout lacks functional efficiency, as certain portions of the building, including the rear bedrooms and the kitchen, do not have proper access. This adversely affects the internal circulation and overall functionality of the layout. Furthermore, it was noted that access to two of the bedrooms is being provided through the kitchen area, which is not considered appropriate and is therefore not appreciated by the Commission. Also, the function of open area shown in the rear side is not understood from the submitted design scheme.  

d) During online discussion, the architect apprised the Commission that a lift is being proposed as an addition to the existing layout. The Commission advised that the lift be relocated in a manner that does not obstruct movement within the building and ensures that all rooms remain accessible through a common passageway.

e) It was also noted that some rooms are not getting natural light and ventilation which would affect the quality of life of users. It shall be ensured that the design of the room is as per applicable norms/regulations/building bye laws.

f) The size of the kitchen appears to be inadequate and inefficient in terms of design. It is therefore recommended that the layout be revised to provide sufficient working space and improve its functional efficiency.

g) The entry to the plot appears to be located beneath the staircase. It shall be ensured that adequate headroom is provided to facilitate safe movement of users.

h) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

i) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, has discrepancies, and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The DDA forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on March 16, 1998; specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meetings held on December 11, 2025, January 8, 2026 and January 29, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for addition/alteration (addition of bedroom, toilet, balcony, and extension of living and dining room in all dwelling units) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-02122522118 dated 03.02.2026 and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, replies submitted etc., and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not take into account the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions and alterations.

b) It has been observed that the submission has been re-submitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-02122522118 dated 03.02.2026, which is not appreciated.

c) The earlier observations of the Commission it was mentioned that:

“…The proposed architectural elements on the façade, including the balcony railing and jaali, have not been appreciated by the Commission. The termination of the jaali at the railing level is not considered a satisfactory detail and shall be revised, keeping safety standards in mind. Further, the design of the railing shall be reworked to ensure that it is low-maintenance and aesthetically appropriate, while maintaining coherence with the other elements of the façade…”

It was observed that the design and detailing of the jaali have still not been revised as suggested by the Commission in the observations. Additionally, the railing design continues to appear unsafe due to the large gaps between the vertical members. It shall therefore be ensured that the details are suitably revised, and a section drawing clearly showing the integration of the jaali with the balcony railing be provided.

d) It was observed that the proposed façade windows, as depicted in the 3D views, do not include sunshades. To protect the windows from weather conditions such as heat and rain, and to avoid the likelihood of temporary coverings being added by residents at a later stage, the same shall be reconsidered. Detailed façade/skin sections at an enlarged scale, along with material specifications, shall also be submitted to clearly understand the architectural treatment of the elevations.

e) During the online discussion with the architect, the Commission reiterated the need to explore better alternate options than those submitted to address the additional parking requirement, including the provision of stack parking arrangements, and to submit the same as part of the revised proposal. As the stack parking is located in the front setback and would be visible from outside the boundary, its design shall be appropriately integrated within the overall scheme of the complex. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

f) All modifications proposed in the revised submission including railing/grill design, stack parking provision, location of VRV units, sunshade provisions, water tanks etc. shall also be reflected in the revised 3D views to ensure coherence and consistency throughout the submission.

g) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, an incomplete submission with discrepancies has been received at the Completion stage for the consideration of the Commission. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and those provided vide DUAC letter no OL-02122522118 dated 03.02.2026 and furnish a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The NDMC forwarded (through email/online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions/alteration in respect to South India Club at Mandir Marg at its meeting on January 11, 2012.
3. The building plans proposal for addition/alteration (addition of new building comprising of 2B+G+4 floors) received (through email/online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including drawings and photographs, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not take into account the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions and alterations.

b) As per project report, the plot has an existing structure (2B+G+6 floors) constructed under phase 1, but no record of completion taken has been found in the Commission's available record.

c) It was observed that the plans show an existing structure (marked as the school building in the submission) which is proposed to be demolished to accommodate the proposed structure; however, existing photographs of the structure to be demolished and the demolition plan has not been submitted. The same shall be submitted for better understanding of the site and official records.

d) Further, certain crucial documents required at the formal stage are missing, including a bird’s-eye view illustrating the integration of the existing and proposed developments on the site, along with details of solar panels, water tanks, VRV units, RWP, and other services on the terrace. It shall therefore be ensured that complete documentation with appropriate nomenclature is submitted to enable the Commission to undertake a comprehensive and judicious review of the proposal.

e) Details of the auditorium, including seating arrangements and levels, are missing in the submission. It shall be ensured that complete details of the auditorium are provided and appropriately reflected in the relevant plans, elevations, and sections, with appropriate nomenclature, to provide clarity regarding its functioning. Also, lift lobby appears to be small and shall be appropriately designed as per applicable norms/regulations/building bye laws etc. 

f) The submitted drawings indicate that the two levels of basement parking (existing and proposed) are to be integrated. Accordingly, an adequate number of existing photographs of the basement shall be submitted to clearly understand its present status and usage.

g) The submission currently does not indicate the air-conditioning mechanism, thereby rendering the proposal incomplete. It shall be ensured that complete details of the proposed air-conditioning system are provided, including the location of outdoor air-conditioning units along with the proposed screening mechanism.

h) It has been observed that the submission contains multiple spelling errors. The same shall be carefully reviewed and corrected in the revised submission.

i) The existing photographs of the building indicate exposed plumbing pipes that adversely affect the façade. The photographs also show an existing DG set placed openly on the site. In the event a combined NOC for completion is sought at a later stage, it shall be ensured that all exposed pipes are suitably concealed and the DG set, along with its exhaust, is appropriately camouflaged. 

j) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

k) Further, it was observed that the existing portion has been denoted in red colour and the proposed portion in black, which is not in accordance with the colour coding prescribed in the relevant provisions of the Building Bye-Laws. The same shall be corrected, and the revised submission shall be prepared using the appropriate colour coding for proper review by the Commission.

l) Details of rainwater pipes and drainage arrangements shall be clearly indicated in the revised submission. The location of plumbing shafts at the terrace level, presently not shown, shall also be incorporated to ensure completeness of the drawings. Further, all plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, DG set and exhaust pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., shall be appropriately camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

m) The Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. Any deviations in the artwork from the approved design must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before the commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion.

n) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the effective utilisation of the space beneath, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

o) The architect is also advised to go through the DUAC Memorandums issued vide letter no: 1(2)/82-DUAC dated 07.10.2025 (available on the DUAC website www.duac.org.in) for various issues related to the DUAC approvals.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, has discrepancies, is incomplete and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.
    

1. The NDMC forwarded (through email/online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on December 18, 2014; specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal for (Residential Plotted developments) comprising of B+G+3 floors) received (through email/online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs, etc, the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The plot consists of nine dwelling units designed as duplex and simplex with Basement + G + 3 floors. 

b) The gate at the service entry located on Hailey Road shall be reduced to a width of 1.8 m instead of the proposed 3.0 m wide gate.

c) It was observed that the utility balconies of all dwelling units do not include provisions for screening of utilities. Appropriate provisions for drying clothes, plumbing shafts and their screening mechanisms shall be made so as not to affect the aesthetics of the façade. 

d) The design proposal incorporates provisions for double stack parking arrangements in the stilt area to meet the necessary parking requirements. The architect & the proponent to ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site, which shall be examined during the proposal's completion stage. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

e) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

f) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the effective utilisation of the space beneath, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) The architect is also advised to go through the DUAC Memorandums issued vide letter no: 1(2)/82-DUAC dated 07.10.2025 (available on the DUAC website www.duac.org.in) for various issues related to the DUAC approvals.
 

1. The NDMC forwarded (through email/online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Cathedral Church of Redemption and Campus at Church Road is a listed Grade - I heritage at serial no. 14 in the Gazette Notification no. F.No.4/2/2009/UD/I 6565 dated October 1, 2009, issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
3. The building plans proposal for addition and alterations received (through email/online) at formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including drawings and photographs, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not take into account the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions and alterations.

b) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

c) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d) The Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. Any deviations in the artwork from the approved design must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before the commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion.

e) The architect is also advised to go through the DUAC Memorandums issued vide letter no: 1(2)/82-DUAC dated 07.10.2025 (available on the DUAC website www.duac.org.in) for various issues related to the DUAC approvals.

1. The DDA forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission had earlier approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 2, 1996, and the Completion plans were returned to DDA by the sub-committee at its meeting held on October 21, 2003. The Commission approved the revised layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on November 22, 2005.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meetings held on December 24, 2025, January 22, 2026 and February 12, 2026, specific observations were given. 
4. The proposal for additions and alterations (proposed extension of bedrooms, toilets, balconies and kitchen) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-22122522120 dated 19.02.2026. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not take into account the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions and alterations.

b) It has been observed that the submission has been re-submitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-22122522120 dated 19.02.2026, which is not appreciated.

c) The earlier observations of the Commission it was mentioned that:

“….The commission emphasised that the building must properly screen all exposed pipes, designate screened spaces for outdoor air conditioning units and remove all balcony coverings…”

To which the architect replied that:

“..There is no toilet and rainwater pipe in the front side and back side of the complex where roads are. Further All pipes are provided in shafts and are covered with aluminium jali, It is further stated that balcony is provided with screening from bottom to ceiling and all temporary existing balcony covering will be removed during construction stage extension and screened final aesthetical view...”.

It is reiterated to the Architect that adequately screened spaces shall be designated for exposed pipes and services and a comprehensive screening scheme shall be provided in the revised submission. Further, the Commission emphasised that all temporary balcony coverings shall be removed prior to obtain the NOC for completion.

d) It was observed that the proposed façade windows, as depicted in the 3D views, do not include sunshades. To protect the windows from weather conditions such as heat and rain, and to avoid the likelihood of temporary coverings being added by residents at a later stage, the same shall be reconsidered. Detailed façade/skin sections at an enlarged scale, along with material specifications, shall also be submitted to clearly understand the architectural treatment of the elevations.

e) The design and detailing of the balcony railing along with the jaali have not been appreciated by the Commission, as the proposed railing appears to pose safety concerns due to the gaps within it. The jaali and railing shall therefore be suitably redesigned, clearly indicating their integration while ensuring adequate user safety. Provision for drying of clothes shall also be incorporated. A detailed skin section shall be submitted to show the working of the proposed detail and the placement of the jaali to effectively screen services such as pipes. Further, all modifications proposed in the revised submission including railing/grill design, drying of cloths, stack parking provision, location of VRV units, sunshade provisions, terrace plan, water tanks, etc. shall also be reflected in the revised 3D views to ensure coherence and consistency across the submission.

f) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

g) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

h) The architect is also advised to go through the DUAC Memorandums issued vide letter no: 1(2)/82-DUAC dated 07.10.2025 (available on the DUAC website www.duac.org.in) for various issues related to the DUAC approvals.

5. Overall, an incomplete submission with discrepancies has been received at the Completion stage for the consideration of the Commission. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and those provided vide DUAC letter no OL-22122522120 dated 19.02.2026 and furnish a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The NDMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the addition/alterations at its meeting held on August 26, 2009.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans for addition/alteration at its meetings held on May 29, 2025 and September 4, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for addition/alterations received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-28082524016 dated 11.09.2025. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not take into account the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions and alterations.

b) As per the report submitted by the architect, two structures exist at the site: the main residential block and a servant block with a garage at ground level. It is proposed that the main building be demolished, while the garage is to be retained.

c) The proposal is for the addition/alteration of the following areas:

i. Main Residential Block: - G+02 floors

ii. Pavilion: - Ground floor

iii. Service Block: - G+02 floors

d) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

e) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

f) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the effective utilisation of the space beneath, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) The architect is also advised to go through the DUAC Memorandums issued vide letter no: 1(2)/82-DUAC dated 07.10.2025 (available on the DUAC website www.duac.org.in) for various issues related to the DUAC approvals.

Building plans proposal in respect of “JJV Nikunj Hotel Complex” at Plot no. 1, NH-8, Samalkha. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier the Commission accepted the Conceptual proposal for the existing block at its meeting held on June 12, 2019; specific observations were given. Subsequently the Commission approved the proposal for addition/ alteration at its meeting held on July 24, 2019; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the conceptual proposal for the JJV Nikunj Hotel Complex at Plot no. 1, NH-8, Samalkha at its meeting held on December 18, 2025; specific observations were made.
4. The building plans proposal for JJV Nikunj Hotel Complex at Plot no.1, NH-8, Samalkha received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-04122527066 dated 23.12.2025. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that two distinct 3D blocks have been shown on a combined plot; however, the extent and boundaries of the proposed site are not clearly understood, as the plot under consideration has not been distinctly demarcated in the drawings. This creates ambiguity regarding the portion of the site for which approval is being sought, and no substantial clarification has been provided by the Architect in this regard.

b) In view of the above, the Commission decided not to consider the proposal at the conceptual stage and advised the Architect to resubmit the proposal through the concerned local body at the formal stage with complete documentation, including clear demarcation of the plot, for the judicious review of the Commission.

Building plans proposal in respect of “DAPL Nikunj Hotel Complex at Plot no. 2, NH-8, Samalkha, New Delhi”.  (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the conceptual proposal for the DAPL Nikunj Hotel Complex at Plot no. 2, NH-8, Samalkha at its meetings held on December 18, 2025 and January 2, 2026, specific observations were made.
3. The building plans proposal for DAPL Nikunj Hotel Complex at Plot no.2, NH-8, Samalkha received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-29122527068 dated 06.01.2026. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that two distinct 3D blocks have been shown on a combined plot; however, the extent and boundaries of the proposed site are not clearly understood, as the plot under consideration has not been distinctly demarcated in the drawings. This creates ambiguity regarding the portion of the site for which approval is being sought, and no substantial clarification has been provided by the Architect in this regard.

b) In view of the above, the Commission decided not to consider the proposal at the conceptual stage and advised the Architect to resubmit the proposal through the concerned local body at the formal stage with complete documentation, including clear demarcation of the plot, for the judicious review of the Commission.

Revised Landscape Layout for Sant Nirankari Mandal (Regd.) Hospital, Dheerpur, Burari.  (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal received at formal stage at its meeting held on December 12, 2018. The Commission accepted the revised concept of the proposal at its meetings held on 25.06.2021 and approved the formal submission at its meeting on 08.09.2022; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion plans proposal at completion stage at its meeting held on November 27, 2025; specific observations were made.
4. The revised landscape layout plan for Sant Nirankari Mandal Hospital received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs, etc, the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The architect apprised the Commission that the proposal has been submitted only for revised landscape layout wherein two modifications are proposed from the previously approved by DUAC in meeting dated 08.09.2022:

1. i. Removal of amphitheatre

ii. Removal of gazebos

b) The Commission also noted that the conceptual acceptance has been granted only for the revised landscape layout. No building component has been considered or reviewed as part of the current proposal.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).
‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.’

1. The NDMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the Redevelopment of GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar at its meeting held on January 17, 2020, and specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for part completion (PKG IV-B, Type-V-Part-1) received (through email) at the completion stage for the following towers was scrutinised:

a) Tower B-07 (each of B+G+10 floors)

b) Tower A-08, A-09, A-10, A-11 (each of B+G+11 floors)

c) Tower A-12, A-13, A-14 (each of B+G+11 floors)

d) Tower A-21, A-22, A-23 (each of B+G+11 floors)

4. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs etc., the proposal for the NOC for part completion (PKG IV-B, Type-V-Part-1) is found to be accepted.

1. The NDMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the Redevelopment of GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar at its meeting held on January 17, 2020, and specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for part completion (PKG VA, Type-IV-Part-1) received (through email) at the completion stage for the following towers was scrutinised:

a) Tower A-22, A-23, A-24, A-25 (each of 3B+G+12 floors)

b) Tower B-26, B-27, B-28 (each of 3B+G+11 floors)

c) Tower B-30, B-31, B-32 (each of 3B+G+11 floors)

4. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs etc., the proposal for the NOC for part completion (PKG VA, Type-IV-Part-1) is found to be accepted.

1. The NDMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the Redevelopment of GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar at its meeting held on January 17, 2020, and specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for part completion (PKG VB, Type-IV-Part-1) received (through email) at the completion stage for the following towers was scrutinised:

a) Tower 1, 2 (each of B+G+12 floors)

b) Tower 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 22A, 23, 23A, 24 (each of B+G+12 floors)

4. The Commission also noted that initially three level of basements were approved (formal), however, only one level of basement has been constructed. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs etc., the proposal for the NOC for part completion (PKG VB, Type-IV-Part-1) is found to be accepted.