* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5847/2010
Date of Decision: 17th April, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Adv.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. for MCD with Mr.S.C. Meena, A.E.(B), Mr.N.R. Meena, A.E.(B) Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. with Ms.Akumla Pongener, Mr.Hem Kumar, Advs. for R-3/SHO along with S.I. Uma Datt(No.D-1946), P.S. Mangolpuri.
Mr. Pankaj Batra, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI : HIMA KOHLI, J(Oral)
1. The petitioner/Society has filed the present petition praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents No.1&2/MCD to take action against the unauthorized construction/encroachment in the respective flats of the residential complex of the petitioner/Society and for further directions to the respondents No.1 & 2/MCD to stop the ongoing unauthorized construction in flats mentioned in prayer (b) of the writ petition. W.P.(C) No.5847/2010 Page 1 of 4
2. A series of orders have been passed in the present case from time to time, directing the respondent/MCD to undertake a survey of the petitioners' Complex and identify the flats where unauthorized construction had been carried out and further, to remove the unauthorized construction as per law and in a sequential manner, without targeting a particular block.
3. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 15.11.2011, counsel for the respondent/MCD had stated that 75-80% of the demolition work had already been undertaken by the MCD and that balance 25% work would be undertaken very soon. In view of the aforesaid statement, MCD was directed to file a fresh status report for perusal of the Court. A status report has been filed by respondent No.1/MCD on 16.04.2012 wherein it is stated that approximately 90% of the unauthorized construction existing in the residential complex of the petitioner/Society has been removed and the remaining 10% of the unauthorized construction is inaccessible and hence has not been demolished.
4. Counsel for the petitioner/Society states that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the Society has submitted an application to the respondent/MCD for regularization of the unauthorized construction/deviations existing in the flats of the residential complex of the petitioner/Society wherein regularization of W.P.(C) No.5847/2010 Page 2 of 4 the extended balconies and compoundable deviations have been sought. He states that apart from the aforesaid application for regularization submitted by the petitioner/Society, the Society has also filed an appeal against the orders of demolition/sealing etc. passed by the MCD before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and that the said appeal is listed for arguments on 24.04.2012. He states that in view of the aforesaid position and the subsequent events, the petitioner/Society does not wish to press the present petition any further. However, leave is sought to pursue the pending application for regularization submitted by the petitioner/Society to the respondent/MCD as also the appeal preferred by the Society and pending before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD for adjudication.
5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner/Society to pursue its application for regularization with the MCD as also the appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD. Till the appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD is decided and till the MCD takes a decision on the pending application for regularization filed by the petitioner/Society, whichever is later, respondent No.1/MCD shall not take any further demolition action in respect of the remaining 10% unauthorized construction in the Complex, which includes the extended balconies beyond the original sanctioned plan of the residential complex as also W.P.(C) No.5847/2010 Page 3 of 4 the compoundable deviations. However, in case the Tribunal rejects the appeal filed by the petitioner/Society and/or in case the MCD rejects the application for regularization submitted by the petitioner, then MCD shall be at liberty to specify the details of the remaining 10% unauthorized construction existing in the different flats in the Complex, to the petitioner/Society for it to take action in a time bound manner for removal thereof on its own and intimate the action taken to the respondent/MCD within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the details of the unauthorized construction.
6. The petition is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI) Judge APRIL 17, 2012 'anb' W.P.(C) No.5847/2010 Page 4 of 4