Delhi High Court
Dr. Devendra Kumar vs Mcd And Anr on 3 June, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
42.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4065/2011 & CM No.8421/2011 (for stay).
DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal with Mr. Alok
Singh, Advocate.
versus
MCD AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurang Kanth with Mr. Saurabh
Khanna, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 03.06.2011
1. The petitioner claims to be the owner and occupier of house no.129,
Sukar Bazar Wali Gali, Neb Sarai, New Delhi - 110 062 and being
threatened with action by the respondent MCD for demolition of
unauthorized construction has filed the present petition seeking the relief of
mandamus to the respondent MCD to regularize the property.
2. The counsel for the respondent MCD appearing on advance notice
states that after giving due notice demolition action has already been taken
against the property on 1 st April, 2011 and further demolition action on 21 st
April, 2011. He states that further action needs to be taken against the
property. He has also contended that the said property is also the subject
matter of the Public Interest Litigation being W.P.(C) No.2485/2011 before
the Chief Justice's Bench of this Court wherein vide order dated 20 th
1/-
April, 2011 the respondent MCD has been directed to take action against the
unauthorized construction.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has rejoined contending that he is
unable to avail the remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD owing to the
vacancy in the office of the Presiding Officer therein. In other matters, it has
been informed that though the Presiding Officer has been appointed but has
not started holding Court as yet.
4. This Court is of the opinion that the directions of the Division Bench
for taking action against the unauthorized construction in the property would
not come in the way of persons aggrieved from such action availing their
remedies in law. In the circumstances aforesaid, the petitioner is unable to
avail of the remedy. It is not deemed expedient for this Court to enter into
the controversy at this stage and it is deemed expedient to allow the
petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by restraining the respondent
MCD from taking any action of demolition or sealing with respect to the
property till 10th July, 2011. Unless there is any further stay from any
Court/MCD Appellate Tribunal by then, the respondent MCD to proceed to
take action against the property on 11th July, 2011. This is on the condition
that the petitioner shall not alienate, encumber or part with possession of the
property and shall not carry out any work whatsoever including of
restoration of the portions of the property already demolished and if found
2/-
to be carrying out such works, the respondent MCD shall be entitled to
immediately take action against the property. No order as to costs.
Dasti under signature of court master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JUNE 03, 2011
pp..
3/-
