Jawaharlal Nehru Co-Operative ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 2482 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) 5847/2010

                                           Date of Decision: 17th April, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
                                             ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Adv.

                  versus


MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. for MCD with Mr.S.C. Meena, A.E.(B), Mr.N.R. Meena, A.E.(B) Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. with Ms.Akumla Pongener, Mr.Hem Kumar, Advs. for R-3/SHO along with S.I. Uma Datt(No.D-1946), P.S. Mangolpuri.

Mr. Pankaj Batra, Adv. for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

: HIMA KOHLI, J(Oral)

1. The petitioner/Society has filed the present petition praying inter

alia for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents

No.1&2/MCD to take action against the unauthorized

construction/encroachment in the respective flats of the residential

complex of the petitioner/Society and for further directions to the

respondents No.1 & 2/MCD to stop the ongoing unauthorized

construction in flats mentioned in prayer (b) of the writ petition.

2. A series of orders have been passed in the present case from

time to time, directing the respondent/MCD to undertake a survey of

the petitioners' Complex and identify the flats where unauthorized

construction had been carried out and further, to remove the

unauthorized construction as per law and in a sequential manner,

without targeting a particular block.

3. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 15.11.2011, counsel for the

respondent/MCD had stated that 75-80% of the demolition work had

already been undertaken by the MCD and that balance 25% work

would be undertaken very soon. In view of the aforesaid statement,

MCD was directed to file a fresh status report for perusal of the Court.

A status report has been filed by respondent No.1/MCD on 16.04.2012

wherein it is stated that approximately 90% of the unauthorized

construction existing in the residential complex of the

petitioner/Society has been removed and the remaining 10% of the

unauthorized construction is inaccessible and hence has not been

demolished.

4. Counsel for the petitioner/Society states that during the

pendency of the present proceedings, the Society has submitted an

application to the respondent/MCD for regularization of the

unauthorized construction/deviations existing in the flats of the

residential complex of the petitioner/Society wherein regularization of

the extended balconies and compoundable deviations have been

sought. He states that apart from the aforesaid application for

regularization submitted by the petitioner/Society, the Society has also

filed an appeal against the orders of demolition/sealing etc. passed by

the MCD before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and that the said appeal

is listed for arguments on 24.04.2012. He states that in view of the

aforesaid position and the subsequent events, the petitioner/Society

does not wish to press the present petition any further. However,

leave is sought to pursue the pending application for regularization

submitted by the petitioner/Society to the respondent/MCD as also the

appeal preferred by the Society and pending before the Appellate

Tribunal, MCD for adjudication.

5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with

liberty granted to the petitioner/Society to pursue its application for

regularization with the MCD as also the appeal filed before the

Appellate Tribunal, MCD. Till the appeal filed before the Appellate

Tribunal, MCD is decided and till the MCD takes a decision on the

pending application for regularization filed by the petitioner/Society,

whichever is later, respondent No.1/MCD shall not take any further

demolition action in respect of the remaining 10% unauthorized

construction in the Complex, which includes the extended balconies

beyond the original sanctioned plan of the residential complex as also

the compoundable deviations. However, in case the Tribunal rejects

the appeal filed by the petitioner/Society and/or in case the MCD

rejects the application for regularization submitted by the petitioner,

then MCD shall be at liberty to specify the details of the remaining

10% unauthorized construction existing in the different flats in the

Complex, to the petitioner/Society for it to take action in a time bound

manner for removal thereof on its own and intimate the action taken

to the respondent/MCD within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of the details of the unauthorized construction.

6. The petition is disposed of.

(HIMA KOHLI) Judge APRIL 17, 2012 'anb'