* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6503/2010
Date of Decision:21st February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
MAJOR KISHORE SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj V.George, Advocate with
Ms. Shilpa M. George and Mr. K. Gireesh Kumar,
Advocates alongwith petitioner in person.
versus
GOVT OF NCT & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.M. Kalra, Advocate with Mr. Kunal Kalra, Advocate for R-2/IOCL.
Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for R-3MCD.
Ms. Mamta Tandon, Advocate for Mr. V.K.
Tandon, Advocate and Mohd. Noorullah, Advocate for Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for R-
4/Delhi Police with SI Vijender Kumar, PS:
Kapashera.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondent No.2/IOCL and respondent No.3/MCD to initiate sealing and demolition action against properties situated on the approach road to the Bijwasan Terminal being operated by respondent No.2/IOCL. The petitioner has also prayed for costs and damages to be imposed on the respondents for the purported illegal action of demolishing his dwelling unit, i.e., House No.1, Major Saab Niwas, Saini Mohalla, Bijwasan, New Delhi, on the ground that his premises was singled out and that too when demarcation proceedings were underway. W.P.(C) No.6503/2010 Page 1 of 5
2. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated 24.09.2010 and it was directed that status quo be maintained by the parties with regard to the property of the petitioner. On 02.08.2011, a counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.2/IOCL, wherein, it was stated that the terminal in question had been constructed by respondent No.2/IOCL after the acquisition of the land and the same had been placed at its disposal and further that sufficient land had been acquired outside the boundary wall of the Bijwasan terminal to build a private road, which connects to the main Najafgarh Road. It is averred by respondent No.2/IOCL that since the year 2005, there has been a systematic encroachment on both sides of the approach road by the villagers/residents of the area and the petitioner herein is one such encroacher.
3. Pertinently, till date, rejoinder has not been filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid counter affidavit. Further, despite the order dated 02.08.2011, whereunder last opportunity of four weeks was granted to respondent No.3/MCD to file its counter affidavit subject to payment of costs of `5,000/- payable to the petitioner, the same has not been filed. Instead, counsel for respondent No.3/MCD states that the affidavit is ready and he hands over an advance copy thereof to the counsel for the petitioner along with the costs. The said counter affidavit is taken on record.
W.P.(C) No.6503/2010 Page 2 of 5
4. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3/MCD shows that MCD had initiated action against the unauthorized construction carried out in plot No.1, Khasra No.32/25, near IOC Road, village Bijwasan, Saini Mohalla, New Delhi, by booking the same on 12.01.2010. On the same date, notice to show cause was issued to the owner/occupier of the property in question and as the notice was refused, the same was pasted at site. MCD did not receive a reply to the notice to show cause. The petitioner refused to receive the demolition notice dated 20.01.2010 as well. As a result, on 29.01.2010, a demolition order was passed. Finally, demolition action was undertaken by MCD on 15.02.2010. It is submitted that in the course of the demolition action, three shops were demolished with the help of the local police. However, no demolition was undertaken against the old construction, which was protected under the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act.
5. Further, counsel for respondent No.3/MCD states that the petitioner had constructed ground and first floors on the subject plot without obtaining any permission/sanction building plan from the respondent No.3/MCD. This fact is not denied by the counsel for the petitioner. In the teeth of the aforesaid admission, the claim of the petitioner that the action of demolition undertaken by respondent No.3/MCD is illegal qua his plot of land is unsustainable, as is his claim W.P.(C) No.6503/2010 Page 3 of 5 for damages and costs for the purported illegal demolition action. It is also conceded that till date, the petitioner has not taken any action to challenge the purported illegal demolition order passed by respondent No.3/MCD. As a result, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in prayers No. (i) and (iv) are held to be devoid of merits and are turned down.
6. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that his property has been singled out, whereas, there are other similarly situated properties in the same area, which have not been meted out the same treatment as the petitioner's property has been meted out, counsel for respondent No.3/MCD draws the attention of this Court to para 7 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the property belonging to one Shri Samundar Singh situated at a distance of 70 meters from the petitioner's property had been demolished by the MCD between February and March 2010.
7. Learned counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the documents placed by the petitioner at pages 59-60 annexed to the writ petition which form a part of the documents furnished to the petitioner in reply to his Appeal No.204 preferred by him under the RTI Act, to submit that the MCD had undertaken demolition/sealing actions in the months of February-April in respect of 55 properties situated at Saini Mohalla, Bijwasan, New Delhi.
8. Counsel for respondent No.3/MCD submits that if the petitioner is W.P.(C) No.6503/2010 Page 4 of 5 dissatisfied with the aforesaid response and believes that there are other encroachments on public land which are required to be removed, he may point out the same to respondent No.3/MCD and appropriate action shall be initiated thereon, subject to the condition that they are not protected under the Special Provisions Act or any orders passed by any court. The aforesaid suggestion is acceptable to the counsel for the petitioner.
9. In view of the aforesaid position, the present petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to intimate respondent No.3/MCD about the details of the encroachment by way of built up structures on/alongside the approach road to the Bijwasan Terminal within a period of two weeks from today. Upon receiving such information, respondent No.3/MCD shall carry out an inspection of the area and take appropriate action for clearing the said encroachment on public land and/or unauthorized construction, if the same is not protected under the Special Provisions Act or by any stay orders. The action taken shall be duly intimated by the respondent/MCD to the petitioner in writing within a reasonable time from the date of undertaking demolition/removal action.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 21, 2012 JUDGE
rkb /anb/sk
W.P.(C) No.6503/2010 Page 5 of 5