Ramesh Dhingra vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1991 Latest Caselaw 745 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Shri Ramesh Dhingra, petitioner herein, along with others purchased property bearing No. 427, Ward I, Gali Rajan Kalan, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, from Smt. Ram Piari vide registered sale deed, dated 30.6.1991. According to the petitioner neither he nor any other co-purchaser has made any unauthorised construction in the said building but the officials of the respondent without serving any statutory notice, as required under Section 343 of the Municipal Corporation Act threatened to demolish the said building on 26.9 1991, but they were prevented by Mohalla walas, who had collected there. That action of the M.C.D. though challenged by filing a suit in the Court of the Sub-Judge seeking relief of injunction restraining the officials of the M.C.D. and their agents from demolishing or sealing the said property or from disconnecting the electricity supply thereto.

(2) The Sub-Judge concerned relying upon the D.B. decision of this Court in Sarla Kumari v. H.L. Dua and Others, 1991 Rajdhani Law Reporter 176 dismissed the suit being not maintainable.

(3) Aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed.

(4) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court did not appreciate the principles of law as laid down by the Division Bench in Sarla Kumari (supra). According to the learned Counsel although the Division Bench has laid down that where the M.C.D. had passed orders for demolition of structure or of sealing thereof, the remedy available to the aggrieved person consisted in filing an appeal before the appellate tribunal and the Civil Court jurisdiction was excluded under Section 343(4) of the M.C.D. Act, 1957. According to the learned Counsel no notice has been served upon the petitioner or on any of the co-purchasers as is mandatory under Section 343 of the M.C.D. Act and therefore, this action on the part of the M.C.D. is illegal and incompetent.

(5) Whether any notice as required under Section 343 of the M.C.D. Act has been served on the petitioner or any co-purchaser is a question which M.C.D. only can answer and, therefore, I hereby issue notice to the M.C.D. to show cause as to why this Revision petition be not admitted for 10th February, 1990. CM. 2574/91 (Stay)

(6) Notice to the respondent No. 1 (M.C.D.) for the same date. Meanwhile, the officials of M.C.D. and their agents are restrained from demolishing/ sealing the structure in dispute in property No. 427 Ward No. 1 Gali Rajan Kalan, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, except in due course of law. Petition allowed.