Delhi High Court
Shri Chander Kishore Gaur vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 20 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 (60) DRJ 736
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
Rule.
1. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondent/MCD from demolishing the petitioner's property in whole or part thereof bearing No.B-13/9, Krishan Nagar, Village Ghondli, Village Shahdaa Delhi-110051.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.S. Gambhir submits before me that the property had been purchased by the petitioner in 1974 and thereafter construction was raised. He candidly submits that there is no sanctioned plan for the property. Counsel of the petitioner submits that in 1984, ground floor portion was leased for the purposes of a kerosene oil depot. He submits that on 28.7.1987, the MCD had sealed portion of 14 ft. X 14 ft. on the ground floor.
4. Petitioner claims to have deposited on 23.1.2000 Rs. 150000/- as compounding fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the MCD cannot be permitted to demolish the property after they have charged and received the compounding fee. The petitioner has not produced on record the application, if any, submitted for regularisation. it is also not clear on what basis the petitioner computed the sum of Rs. 15000/-. He submits that this was as per the demand of the MCD. There is however no communication attached with the writ petition to show that.
5. When the petitioner filed this writ petition, notice to show cause was issued on the plea that he had already paid the part regularisation fee and his application for regularisation has not been decided, hence the prayer for not demolishing the premises. While issuing notice, it was stated that action for demolition, if any, to be taken was only after following the procedure as established at law.
6. MCD has filed its counter affidavit. In the courter affidavit it is stated that there is illegal and unauthorised construction of one room, one shop, one garage and staircase at ground floor. Not only this, there is unauthorised construction of 3 rooms, kitchen and a lobby at first floor. The unauthorised construction on ground floor was booked while file no.275/B/U/C/Sh/S/96 dated 25.3.1996 and the unauthorised construction on the first floor was booked while file No.5/B/U/C/Sh/S/96 dated 15.4.1996. It is stated that after following the due procedure under Section 343 and 344 of the D.M.C. Act, demolition order was passed. It is admitted that petitioner has applied for regularisation of unauthorised construction. The petitioner was asked to furnish information buy the Corporation vide their letters dated 15.6.1999, 2.12.1999 and 8.1.2001. Another letter was sent on 1.2.2001. Clarification was sought, which the petitioner failed to furnish. One of the points on which clarification is sought is that as per the sale deed the area plot is shown as 133 sq. yds but as per the existing plan the area of plot is shown as 106 sq.yds. Petitioner has failed to demolish the non-compoundable portions i.e. yellow or even to give an undertaking in that regard.
In the light of the aforesaid facts, in my view, this is not a fit case to be entertained in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article226 of the constitution of India. Petitioner has his statutory remedies available by way of appeal. As regards non-regularisation, from the reply filed and particulars given, it appears that the fault lies at the petitioner's own door step.
7. The writ petition is dismissed.
