* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 754/2011
Decided on: 16.03.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
URMIL KAUSHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pushkar Sood, Advocate with
Mr. Arshad, Ali, Advocate
versus
MCD AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Kirti Pal, Asstt. Engineer (Bldg.), Civil Lines
Zone, MCD
Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. Pursuant to the order dated 15.11.2011, Mr. Kirti Pal, Assistant Engineer (Bldg.), Civil Lines Zone, MCD, has filed an affidavit dated 14.03.2012, explaining the non-compliance of the order dated 02.08.2011. In view of the explanation offered and having regard to the unconditional apology tendered by the deponent of the affidavit, the same is accepted.
2. An additional affidavit has been filed by Shri R.K. Jain, Assistant Engineer (Bldg), Civil Lines Zone, MCD, placing on record the order dated 23.12.2011 passed in respect of the ground floor of premises No.24-A, DDA W.P.(C) No.754/2011 Page 1 of 3 Flats, MIG, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. As per the aforesaid order, respondent No.2 had carried out unauthorized construction beyond the permissible additions/alterations in terms of the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India Notification dated 20.01.2003, that permitted certain items of additions/alterations in DDA flats. It is further noticed in the said order that the nature of illegal coverage by respondent No.2 has adversely impacted the right to ventilation/air space of the first floor's owner, namely, the petitioner. As a result, the aforesaid unauthorized construction was booked for demolition by the MCD.
3. Counsel for respondent No.2 states that aggrieved by the aforesaid demolition order dated 23.12.2011, respondent No.2 had filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, registered as Appeal No.1/2012, wherein an order dated 05.03.2012 was passed, recording the statement of respondent No.2 that he be granted a period of one month to reduce the height of the GI/tin shed in the front and rear courtyard of his premises. The aforesaid statement of respondent No.2 was duly noted by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD in the order dated 05.03.2012 and a period of 20 days had been given to respondent No.2 to reduce the height of the courtyard, whereafter the officers of MCD were directed to inspect the property and satisfy themselves. The next date of hearing fixed before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD is 02.04.2012.
W.P.(C) No.754/2011 Page 2 of 3
4. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is also appearing before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and he confirms the fact that respondent No.2 is in the process of removing the existing GI/tin shed in the front and rear courtyard for reduction of its height.
5. In view of the aforesaid subsequent events, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition with liberty granted to both the parties to make their submissions before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD on 02.04.2012. The respondent No.1/MCD shall also be at liberty to inspect the subject premises after respondent No.2 reduces the height of the courtyard in the front and rear courtyards, in terms of the order dated 05.03.2012 passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH 16, 2012 JUDGE
rkb/mk
W.P.(C) No.754/2011 Page 3 of 3