Mr.Obaidul Rab Raufi vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 677 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner, owner of the fourth floor of House No.D-808, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, had filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of the order requiring him to vacate the premises in question. During the course of proceedings, respondent/MCD stated that fresh show cause notices for the unauthorised construction, were being prepared and they would be served on the petitioner. These notices were then got served in Court on the petitioner. Petitioner also filed his reply to the same. A demolition order was also passed pursuant thereto. Parties were directed to maintain status quo up to 20.3.2001, to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the MCD Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition stood disposed of except for the purpose of considering the explanation called from Municipal officers for entertaining/processing the joint application for regularisation of owners of 3rd & 4th floors i.e. petitioner of the property.

2. During the course of proceedings, it was noticed that one of the pleas being taken by the petitioner was that he had paid the regularisation charges for the premises in his occupation. A receipt for the sum of Rs.59,205/- had also been issued in the name of the petitioner. The application, in the instant case, had been made jointly by owners/occupiers of different portions of house i.e. third floor and fourth floor. The application had been so processed. An explanation was called for of the concerned officers, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone, Executive Engineer, Central Zone and the Zonal Engineer, who had entertained and processed the said application for regularisation.

3. Respondent/MCD filed the counter affidavit, explaining that the regularisation fee that had been accepted was not for the fourth floor and in fact the fourth floor had been shown in yellow colour, so as to delineate the portion, which was not to be regularised. Written explanations were also called for and have been submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Executive Engineer and the Zonal Engineer.

4. At the outset, the said officers had accepted that mentioning of third and fourth floor together in the approval of compounding fee, as also in the file while processing the regularisation case was a mistake, which should not have been committed. It is explained by them that the said mistake was committed without any ulterior motive, inadvertently and unintentionally. The officers have prayed for it to be condoned ad have expressed regrets for the same. It is submitted that as per the public notice, regularisation applications were to be accompanied by a site plan, showing the sanctioned construction without any colour, the portion to be regularised in red colour and portions falling outside the regularisation scheme in yellow colour. In the instant case, it is submitted that the entire fourth floor portion was shown in yellow colour. It has been further stated that there was a great rush of applicants, when the regularisation scheme was announced and applications were being received at the counter, in large numbers. The application, though being a joint application, 3rd & 4th floor was received & processed. It is stated that in the instant case, the owners of different portions of third floor and petitioner as owner of fourth floor had even prior to the submission of the regularisation application, deposited ad hoc amounts towards regularisation charges. It is stated that the regularisation fee has only been computed in respect of the third floor portion and does not include the fourth floor.

5. On a perusal of the record and considering the explanation of the officers, I find that respondent/MCD should not have entertained and processed the joint application since this could either give an impression to an applicant that his case for regularisation of the fourth floor is being entertained or alternatively it could even provide an opportunity to the owner of the fourth floor, whose portion cannot be regularised, to raise a controversy that the same has been regularised. Besides, the Corporation should not have issued a separate receipt in the name of the owner of the fourth floor portion towards part of the regularisation charges, which it is claimed were for 3rd floor portion only. MCD may take such action as warranted for rectifying its lapse. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Corporation should forthwith issue departmental instructions to ensure that such joint applications from owners of different portions, where portion/premises of one of them can not be regularized, are not entertained. There should be a procedure evolved for their rejection by scrutiny at the initial stage itself.

6. In view of the fact that the officers have expressed their regrets and tendered their apology, no further orders in this regard are called for in these proceedings, except for the directions to be issued, as noted above.