Delhi High Court
Tek Chand vs Rattan Lal & Ors. on 22 March, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: February 03, 2010
Date of Order: March 22, 2010
+ CM(M) 13/2009
% 22.03.2010
Tek Chand ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.C. Mittal and Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocates
Versus
Rattan Lal & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. K.D. Prasad, Mohd. Kazim Sher & Mr. Vishal Prasad,
Advocates
for R-1.
Mr. Ajay Arora and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocates for MCD
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner made following prayers:
"A. set aside impugned order dated 5.12.2008 passed
by Ms. Kamini Lau, ADJ, Delhi in RCA No.27/2007 in
appeal titled as „Tek Chand v/s Rattan Lal‟ now
fixed for 15.01.2009 and ordering that at least the
compoundable portion of the property bearing
no.17-C, Gaon Mochi Bagh, New Delhi be not
demolished; and
B. issue an appropriate direction or order declaring the
action of the respondent no.3 MCD asking the
petitioner to obtain an NOC from the respondent
no.2 DDA and further the action of respondent no.2
CM(M) 13/2009 Tek Chand v. Rattan Lal & Ors. Page 1 Of 3
DDA for refusing the grant of NOC as illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Fundamental Rights of the
petitioner guaranteed by the Constitution of India;
and
C. Issue a further direction or order to respondent no.3
MCD to consider the application of petitioner for
regularization without demanding NOC or directing
respondent no.2 DDA to issue an NOC for getting
building plan and regularization of property bearing
No.H.No.17-C, Gaon Mochi Bagh (previously known
as Bagh Alakpur, Delhi), Moti Bagh, Nanakpura,
New Delhi."
2. The first prayer is in respect of order passed by learned ADJ. The order
reads as under:
"Heard part arguments on the appeal. It is evident from
the trial court record that there is no sanctioned building
plan for the four to five storied building constructed by
the appellant on the land belonging to the government
under the management and control of DDA; building
activities of which are under the control of MCD. (Shri
Sanjay Gupta JLO from MCD has informed that as per the
report filed before the trial court and entire building has
been booked for unauthorized construction. The action
taken report of the MCD along with the relevant
photographs is directed to be placed on record on next
date. Senior officer of the District under whom the action
has been taken is directed to be present in person on next
date along with the report. Be listed for part heard
arguments on the appeal for 15.1.2009."
3. The prayers B and C are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. While
CM(M) 13/2009 Tek Chand v. Rattan Lal & Ors. Page 2 Of 3
entertaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot give directions to MCD or DDA to act in a particular manner.
Article 227 does not give power to this Court over DDA or MCD. Article 227
relates to supervisory powers of this Court over subordinate courts/ tribunals.
Therefore, prayers B and C made in the petition are beyond the scope and
jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As far as prayer A is
concerned, I find that the order passed by learned trial court does not suffer
from any jurisdictional error and warrants no interference. The petition is
hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.
March 22, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
CM(M) 13/2009 Tek Chand v. Rattan Lal & Ors. Page 3 Of 3
