Delhi High Court
Sh. Ashok Kumar Bandhwar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 5 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001 IIAD Delhi 249, 89 (2001) DLT 651
Bench: B Khan
ORDER
KHAN, (J).
1. Petitioner, an owner of adjacent property filed CWP NO. 1283/99 requiring respondents 1 and 2 to restrain respondents No.3 & 4 from carrying out alleged unauthorised construction at property No. 43-A/1 Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. Writ Court disposed off this petition by order dated 30.4.99 providing as under:
"Respondents shall carry out the construction on the property No. 43-A/1, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi in accordance with the valid sanctioned plans and should the respondent undertake construction otherwise than in accordance with the Act, Rules and Bye Laws the respondent MCD shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law."
2. Petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging that respondents No. 3 and 4 were still going ahead with alleged illegal construction in collusion and connivance with Respondents No.1 and 2 which impinged on their easementory rights. Legal notice was also served on respondents No. 1 and 2 informing them about this but they had failed to take action in the matter and had thus willfully disobeyed the court order.
3. Respondent No.1 has filed counter denying the charge and has explained that Engineers had gone to the site and the construction was stopped and the matter reported to SHO also.
4. Respondents 3 and 4 on their part have claimed that they were entitled to carryout the construction under the deemed valid building permission. Their case is that building permission was granted to them way back in 1970 which was valid till 3.8.72 and that they had satisfied all requirements to revalidate it and had paid a fee of Rs.28,350/- in this regard but since MCD had failed to revalidate it within prescribed of 60 days it should be deemed to have been validated. In other words it is asserted by them that they were raising the construction in accordance with law.
5. Mr. Kaul, learned Sr. Counsel for petitioner submitted that MCD was taking conflicting stands in the matter. On one hand it had admitted that Respondents No. 3 & 4 had undertaken unauthorised construction which was stopped and on the other it was justifying it on the plea that it was compoundable.
6. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. K.K. Buchhar representing respondents 3 & 4 on the other hand pointed out that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Contempt Court to examine the validity or otherwise of building plan and in case petitioner was convinced of its invalidity he could take appropriate remedy in the matter.
7. Court order dated 30.4.1999 allows Respondents 3 & 4 to carry on the construction in accordance with valid sanctioned plan and if they failed to do so then requires MCD to take action against them under law Respondents claim is that they were carrying out construction under a deemed valid sanctioned plan. Whether their claim was good or bad admittedly cannot be determined in the present proceedings. Moreover should they be found constructing without a valid sanctioned plan, it was for the MCD to take necessary steps against them under the court order. Therefore, as it is they cannot be charged of any breach of court order as of now unless it was conclusively established that their proposed construction was unsupported by any valid building plan.
8. No case of contempt against Respondents No.3 & 4 is accordingly made out. This petition is dismissed and proceedings dropped. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to prove and establish by appropriate remedy that Respondents No. 3 & 4 were not holding valid sanctioned building plan and were carrying on construction in the absence of any such plan.
