Friends Of Rajouri Garden ... vs M.C.D. & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2813 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Date of Decision: 25th May, 2011

+               WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9315/2009


Friends of Rajouri Garden Environment (Regd.)  ....Petitioner
                  Through Mr. Rohan Tiwari, Advocate.

                   VERSUS

M.C.D. & Ors.                                 .....Respondents
                   Through    Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC for State with
                              Mr. Kaushik Gole, Advocate and
                              I.O. Insp. R.V. Singh, PS Rajouri
                              Garden.
                              Mr. Darpan Wadhwa & Ms. Sheena
                              Iype for Respondent No. 3.
                              Mr. Shashi Shekhar for applicant.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?


SANJIV KHANNA, J.

This Public Interest Litigation-writ petition was filed in

the year 2009, seeking demolition of unauthorised construction on

Major Sudesh Kumar Road, Ring Road and Maharishi Dayanand

Marg, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. It is also alleged that there has

been a deviation/excess coverage resulting in unauthorised

construction. Violation of the terms of the lease and misuse is also

alleged.

2. On 22nd July, 2009, learned counsel for the MCD had stated

that action would be taken against all unauthorized constructions

and the same would be demolished within three months. A Survey

carried out by the MCD was directed to be filed in the Court.

3. In the next order dated 29th July, 2009, it is recorded that

respondent MCD should take action against the properties

mentioned in the annexure to the status report as per the Delhi

Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 within a period of four months.

An undertaking was given to the same effect before the Court and

was accepted.

4. By order dated 2nd December, 2009, the Registrar General of

this Court was directed to nominate a senior officer to visit and

inspect the area and to file a report as a Local Commissioner on the

aspect of unauthorised construction and change of user.

5. The Local Commissioner submitted his report dated 6th

January, 2010. He had inspected 40 properties as mentioned in

the order dated 24th February, 2010. In this order, it is recorded

that there was variance in the report of the Local Commissioner

and the Action Taken Report filed by the MCD. The order records

that the Action Taken Report was misleading and, therefore, action

should be taken by the MCD to implement the Local

Commissioner's report. Action should also be taken against the

person who filed the Action Taken Report on 4th November, 2009.

6. The order sheets, thereafter, reveal that from time to time the

MCD has been filing Action Taken Reports with regard to the said

properties. The last order dated 2nd February, 2011, records that

out of 40 properties, construction in one property has been

regularized and in respect of nine properties, demolition qua

unauthorised portion had been undertaken. With regard to the

balance 30 properties, it was submitted that unauthorised portions

in part had been demolished. Further time of 2 months was

pleaded and granted to complete the demolition in these

properties.

7. It is clear from the aforesaid that there is a list of 40

properties in which there was unauthorised construction, as

reported by the Local Commissioner in his report dated 6th

January, 2010. Details of the properties are mentioned in the order

dated 24th February, 2010. More than one year has elapsed since

then. Under these circumstances, it is directed that the respondent

MCD will carry out demolition of unauthorised construction in the

aforesaid 39 properties as mandated and required by law, if not

already undertaken, within a period of 6 months. The

respondent/MCD will form a Task Force for the said purpose. The

said Task Force will mention the details of unauthorised

construction in each of the 39 properties; whether any of the said

portion is compoundable; whether owner/ occupant has applied for

compounding and paid the compounding fee, if so, on which date;

whether the compounding application has been allowed. The Task

Force will also examine whether even after compounding, there

exists any unauthorised construction. Such unauthorised

construction will be demolished. Similarly, in case the

occupants/owners do not apply for compounding, or meet and

satisfy the requirement of compounding, the unauthorised

construction will be demolished. Photographs of the properties

along with the site plan will be taken/prepared and kept on record.

8. During the course of hearing today, learned counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that the service lane is blocked by the

shop keepers due to encroachment and unauthorised and illegal

parking of cars. The said aspect will be examined by the traffic

authorities and they shall take appropriate action as may be

required in this regard.

9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to approach this court

in case the respondent does not take action inspite of directions

given above. The MCD will file a status report in this court on or

before 31st December, 2011 clearly indicating that whether or not

they have complied with the above directions/order. In case there

is any default in filing the status report, the matter will be listed

before the Court.

Dasti.

(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE

(DIPAK MISRA) CHIEF JUSTICE May 25, 2011 Kkb/NA