Karuna Bajaj vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 1057 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) 912/2012

                                   Date of Decision:15th February, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:
KARUNA BAJAJ                                         ..... Petitioner
                        Through:    Mr.A.K. Vashishta, Adv.


                  versus



MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.
                                                     ..... Respondents

                        Through:    Mr. Ajay Arora, Adv. with Mr.Kapil
                                    Dutta, Adv. for MCD.
                                    Mr. Sachin Chopra, Mr. Sashi
                                    Mohan, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

for directions to respondent No.1/MCD to seal the properties bearing

No.A-261 and A-262, situated in Khasra No.5, Village Rajpur Khurd,

known as Chatterpur Enclave, New Delhi.

2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the

aforesaid illegal construction has been erected by respondents No.3

and 4 on properties which are owned by the petitioner. It is also an

admitted case that the petitioner has already filed a suit for possession

against respondents No.3 & 4 which is pending adjudication before the

learned District Judge, Saket Courts. The Court is informed that the

said case was listed in the trial court on 13.02.2012 and is now listed

on 29.04.2012 for completion of pleadings.

3. The present petition is predicated on the averments made by

MCD in its written statement filed on 08.04.2011 in the suit

proceedings filed by the petitioner and pending in the court below.

Pertinently, respondent No.1/MCD has been impleaded by the

petitioner/plaintiff as defendant No.5 in the aforesaid civil suit. The

petitioner claims that as the MCD has itself stated that there exists

unauthorized construction in the subject premises and sealing orders

had been passed in respect thereof, the said respondent be directed to

take appropriate action for removal of the said unauthorized

construction in the subject premises.

4. On a pointed query addressed to the learned counsel for the

petitioner as to the steps, if any, taken by the petitioner to press for

such interim relief in the suit proceedings, more so when the aforesaid

written statement came to be filed by the MCD about ten months ago

on 08.04.2011, he states that no such steps have been taken so far by

the petitioner. However, he concedes that the petitioner had filed an

interim application in the trial court for issuance of directions to the

respondent No.1/MCD for removal of the unauthorized construction as

has been sought in the present petition. That apart, the petitioner had

also sought directions against respondents No.3 and 4 in the aforesaid

application, praying inter alia for restraining them from creating any

third party interest in the subject premises. The said application is

stated to be pending and counsel states that no orders have been

passed on the same till date.

5. Having regard to the fact that a civil suit has already been

instituted by the petitioner against respondents No.3 & 4 in the District

Court, Saket, which is pending adjudication and further considering the

fact that an interim application for the same relief as sought in the

present petition had been filed by the petitioner in the said

proceedings, the present petition can only be treated as an attempt on

the part of the petitioner to indulge in forum shopping, which is

impermissible. Such an attempt on the part of the petitioner is

deprecated in the strong terms. If the petitioner has a grievance that

the trial court had not passed any order on the interim application filed

by her in the pending civil proceedings, it was for her to approach the

appellate Court for appropriate relief. Instead, she has filed the

present misconceived petition.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court

declines to exercise the extraordinary powers of judicial review vested

in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is

dismissed in limine with costs quantified at of `20,000/- to be paid to

respondent No.1/MCD within two weeks. Proof of deposit of costs shall

be placed on the record of the civil court well before the next date of

hearing.

7. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry directly to

the trial Court which shall ensure that the costs of `20,000/- imposed

on the petitioner are duly paid to respondent No.1/MCD (defendant

No.5 in the civil suit) when the suit comes up for hearing on

29.04.2012.

HIMA KOHLI, J FEBRUARY 15, 2012 'anb'