Parveen Wadhawan vs Govt. Of National Capital ...
1999 Latest Caselaw 311 Del

ORDER

CW. 2272/95 & CM. 3340/98.

1. This petition was filed on 13th June, 1995 by the petitioner, a resident of Pocket-A, Keshav Puram formerly know as Lawrance Road seeking direction against the respondents to forthwith remove the alleged illegal and unauthorised construction and encroachment upon the Government land alleged to have been made by respondent No.9. The alleged unauthorised construction was also alleged to have been made in Pocket-A. From time to time interim directions were issued. On 22nd May,1997 a statement was made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the unauthorised construction had been removed, therefore, he had no intention to pursue the petition any further. The petition, however, was kept alive only for a limited purpose in respect of the open drains. MCD was asked to report on proposal with regard to open drain in the colony and also to report whether MCD had any machines like a pipe laying machine, for laying Hume Pipes, (which are usually used for transporting drinking water or drain water). If so, what was difficulty in procuring such machines.

2. Pursuant to the above direction an affidavit dated 29th April, 1998 was filed by the Executive Engineer (Works) Rohini Division, MCD stating that the colonies in Delhi are being planned and developed by DDA and are subsequently transferred to MCD for maintenance purposes only. The colony in question is also developed by DDA where in the open surface drains had been constructed for taking the road side water only. At the time of development of this colony the level of the drainage scheme were fixed and accordingly executed at site. As such the level of out-fall drains available for this colony will not allow the laying of hume pipe-line, which is laid at a deeper level than the open surface drains. As per the CPWD specifications the hume pipe line is paid at a deeper level than the open surface storm water drain so the underground hume pipeline in place of open drain is not feasible technically. The affidavit further states that problem had been created because of the unauthorised constructions, which had been carried out by some flat owners by constructing bath-rooms/kitchens on the side of the open drains and the outlet of the same were connected to these open drains from which the dirty water was being discharged. Unauthorised constructions were demolished and the entry of dirty water to these open drains had been checked.

3. Now by filing this application (CM.3340/98) the Resident Welfare Association of Pocket A-1 Keshav Puram Delhi states that no action is being taken by the MCD in respect of other pockets of Keshav Puram where unauthorised construction has been carried out on Government land. It is stated that in Pocket-C also there is lot of unauthorised construction. It is stated that in all there are 13 pockets. Direction is also sought to direct MCD not to unnecessarily harass the members of the petitioner-association and that the MCD should take action regarding Pocket-C and in other pockets.

4. We would not like to enlarge the scope of the present petition after the petitioner expressed his intention in July, 1997 not to prosecute this petition. In case the petitioner association has any grievance it is at liberty to seek redressal of its grievances in accordance with law in separate proceedings. We, however, take on record statement made on behalf of the MCD on affidavit dated 11th March, 1999 that MCD has already initiated action in respect of the unauthorised constructions in Pockets A-2, B-2 & C-1. Affidavit is accompanied by a list of the unauthorised constructions booked by MCD.

5. While disposing of this petition and miscellaneous applications, we direct MCD to continue with its action in respect of the unauthorised constructions.