S.R. Goel & Anr. vs D.D.A. & Anr.
1999 Latest Caselaw 1064 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for perpetual injunction alleging that the farm house constructed on land bearing Nos. 38/4/2, 38/7, 38/14, 38/17 and 38/24 at Village Sahibabad, Daulatpur, Delhi as per the sanctioned plan was sought to be illegally, demolished by the staff of the defendant on 9.3.1993.

2. The plaintiff claims that the construction of the farm house raised by him was in consonance with the sanctioned plan Annexure-B to the plaint.

3. Defendant in the written statement denied that there was any sanctioned plan or other approval obtained. On the other hand, it is contended that the area has been declared as developmental area under Section 10 of Delhi Development Act and as such no construction was permissible without the explicit approval by DDA. The so called sanctioned plan filed by the plaintiff is stated to be simply a site plan without any sanction from any Competent Authority.

4. Prima facie Annexure-B appears to be more of a site plan without any details of what constructions are to be carried out or the seal and signatures of the sanctioning authority. It is more in the nature of a site plan drawn without even complete measurements.

5. In this case an ex-parte restraint had been granted on 10.3.1993. One of the allegations of the plaintiff is that despite the service and knowledge of the restraint order, the defendant/DDA demolished part of the premises in violation of this court's orders for which the plaintiff moved the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A CPC. Defendants have stated in the affidavits and in reply to the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A CPC that the Land Protection Department did not have any intimation of the order passed by this court.

6. The main plank of plaintiff's submission is that construction was sought to be demolished without even serving a show cause notice or the demolition order. The defendants in the written statement have claimed that [notice was issued. The plaintiff, however, refused the service and as a result service was effected by affixation. The plaintiff, it is claimed, was duly given the opportunity to show cause, but he failed to appear before the Deputy Director (Land Protection). Defendants claim that plaintiff in the shelter of the ex-parte restraint order has gone ahead and raised unauthorised constructions of nearly 50 to 60 shops and has raised an unauthorised colony.

7. It is in the light of these rival contentions that counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff may be granted an opportunity of being heard by the defendants with regard to his contentions of having raised constructions in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

Learned counsel further submits that in case such an opportunity is granted to the plaintiff, he would not press, the application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that with a view to avoid controversy with regard to the service of notice and the demolition order, the defendants would be willing to grant a fresh hearing to the plaintiff to show cause against the unauthorised constructions and to prove his contention that the structures were raised in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that a copy of the notice/demolition order, which is said to have been served by affixation and any other notice in respect of the fresh constructions, would be delivered to the learned counsel for the plaintiff within a week. The plaintiff would file its reply within 2 weeks before the Deputy Director (Land Protection) DDA/Competent Authority, who would grant an hearing and proceed in accordance with law. Till the hearing and decision by the Deputy Director (Land Protection) DDA/Competent Authority parties shall maintain status quo. Plaintiff to appear before the Deputy Director (Land Protection) DDA/Competent Authority on 21.12.1999 at 2.00 p.m.

8. Suit is disposed of with the consent of counsel for the parties in the above terms.