* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1683/2012
Date of Decision: 30th March, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
MUKESH MEHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi D. Sharma, Adv. with
petitioner in person.
versus
MCD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Adv. with Mr.R.P. Wadhwa, A.E., MCD.
Mr. Shariq Mohammed, Adv. with Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Adv. for R-2 along with S.I. Madan Lal (D/3491), P.S. Mianwali Nagar, New Delhi.
Mr. Rajesh Banati, Adv. with Mr.Sunil Verma, Adv. for R-3.
along with Ms.Sandhya Plha, R-3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI : HIMA KOHLI,J (Oral)
1. Vide order dated 26.03.2012, notice was issued to respondent No.3 for appearance today. Mr. Rajesh Banati, Advocate enters appearance for Mrs. Sandhya Palha, W/o Rajiv Palha, R/o 9/300, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi-110087, who is the owner of adjoining property bearing No.A-56, Meera Bagh, New Delhi. He concedes that the damage caused to the petitioner's premises as is apparent from a perusal of the photographs enclosed with the writ petition, has occurred due to the demolition work undertaken at the instance of his W.P.(C) No.1683/2012 Page 1 of 4 client in her adjoining property.
2. Respondent No.3, who is present, expresses contrition at the manner in which the demolition activity in respect of the built up structure in her premises has been undertaken which has resulted in causing extensive damage to the property of the petitioner. She further assures the Court that the petitioner's premises shall be repaired and restored to its original position to his satisfaction.
3. Counsel for respondent No.1/MCD hands over the status report with a copy to the other side. As per the status report, the premises of the petitioner and respondent No.3 were inspected by the area officials on 27.03.2012 and during the course of inspection, it was noticed that the owner of property No.A-56 was demolishing the old and existing structure and that as per the record, there is no sanctioned building plan in respect of the said property. It is stated by learned counsel for respondent No.1/MCD that two of the photographs enclosed with the status report are those of the petitioner's premises while the middle one is that of respondent No.3. The aforesaid status report is taken on record.
4. In view of the apology tendered by respondent No.3, Mrs. Sandhya Palha and the assurance given by her that she shall restore the premises of the petitioner to its original position and further, having regard to the fact that the aforesaid offer has been accepted by W.P.(C) No.1683/2012 Page 2 of 4 the petitioner, who is also present in Court, the present petition is disposed of on the following terms:
i. Respondent No.3, Mrs. Sandhya Palha shall file an undertaking that till the premises of the petitioner is repaired and restored by her to its original condition, and a letter of satisfaction issued by the petitioner, she shall not carry out any further demolition activity in her premises. In the affidavit, respondent No.3, Mrs. Sandhya Palha shall also tender a written apology to the petitioner for all the inconvenience caused to him on her account. The aforesaid undertaking shall be filed within two weeks with a copy to the counsel for the petitioner and the remaining respondents.
ii. Upon completion of the repair work in the premises of the petitioner, he shall confirm the same in writing to respondent No.1/MCD.
iii. Respondent No.1/MCD shall, in the meantime, ensure that respondent No.3 does not take any further steps for undertaking any demolition activity in her premises situated at A-56, Meera Bagh, New Delhi.
iv. The local police shall also ensure that no further demolition activity is undertaken at the premises of respondent No.3 till respondent No.1/MCD confirms to it that it has received a letter W.P.(C) No.1683/2012 Page 3 of 4 of satisfaction from the petitioner.
v. Further, till the petitioner issues a letter of satisfaction to the MCD confirming the fact that respondent No.3/Mrs. Sandhya Palha has restored his premises to its original position, it shall not process the building plans, if any submitted by respondent No.3 for sanction in respect of her premises at A-56, Meera Bagh, New Delhi.
vi. It is agreed that as respondent No.3 shall tender a written apology to the petitioner for the harassment and inconvenience caused to him, the petitioner shall not initiate any further civil or criminal proceedings against her on account of the damage caused to his premises due to the demolition activity undertaken by respondent No.3 in her premises.
5. The petition is disposed of with costs of `10,000/- imposed on respondent No.3, Mrs. Sandhya Palha to be paid to the petitioner within two weeks. Copy of proof of payment of costs shall be furnished to respondent No.1/MCD while placing a copy thereof on record along with the affidavit.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH 30, 2012 Judge
'anb'/sk
W.P.(C) No.1683/2012 Page 4 of 4