Delhi High Court
Hardeep Singh vs D.D.A. And Ors on 24 February, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5912/2011
Date of Decision:24th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
HARDEEP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
D.D.A. AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. for
Mr.Ajay Verma, Adv. for DDA.
Ms. Maninder Acharya, Adv. with
Mr.Yashish Chandra, Adv. for MCD.
Ms. Ferida Satarwala, Adv. with
Ms.Rachna Saxena, Adv. for R-
3/SHO, P.S. Vasant Kunj.
Mr. Jitender Ratta, Adv. for R-4.
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/DDA and respondent No.2/MCD to
carry out demolition action in respect of the unauthorized construction
already carried out by the residents of D-8, House No.8066 and 8189,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070.
2. Vide order dated 17.08.2011, notice was issued to the
respondents calling upon them to take into consideration the grievance
of the petitioner and file a counter affidavit along with the action taken
report.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent No.1/DDA and
respondent No.2/MCD have filed their respective counter affidavits.
The counter affidavit of respondent No.1/DDA is not on record.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1/DDA states that the same was
filed in the Registry only yesterday with a copy to the counsel for the
petitioner. He, however, hands over a copy of the said affidavit. In
the counter affidavit, it is submitted on behalf of respondent No.1/DDA
that the building activities in the subject area are looked after by the
respondent No.2/MCD and thus, DDA has no role to play in the matter.
4. As regards the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2/MCD,
it is submitted in the counter affidavit that the subject premises was
inspected by the concerned officer of respondent No.2/MCD and in the
course of inspection, no construction activity was found to be going on
in the subject premises nor was any building material found stacked at
the site.
5. It is stated in the affidavit that as regards House No.8066, the
owner of the subject premises had carried out construction at the
terrace floor in the shape of one room with toilet in accordance with
the permission granted by respondent No.2/MCD vide letter dated
20.01.2009. It is further stated that the owner of the aforesaid
premises had also erected a temporary structure in the shape of a
shade, which is also permissible under the policy and guidelines issued
by the DDA. Copies of the sanction plan along with sanction letter
dated 20.01.2009 and the DDA's guidelines are annexed with the
counter affidavit as Annexure R-1. (colly.).
6. As for House No.8189/D-8, Vasant Kunj, it is submitted by
respondent No.2/MCD that the owner of the subject premises had
carried out construction on the terrace floor, in the shape of one room
with toilet and had applied for regularization for the said construction,
under the self assessment scheme under the policy/guidelines of DDA
and he had also deposited regularization fee in this regard. Since the
said construction was within the permissible limit under the policy of
DDA, the same was regularized. A copy of the regularization plan is
annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure R-2. It is further
stated that the owner of the aforesaid premises had also raised a
temporary construction in the shape of a shade, which the owner had
himself removed and as such no action was required to be taken by
respondent No.2/MCD.
7. As this Court is satisfied by the affidavit filed by respondent
No.2/MCD, no further orders are required to be passed on the present
petition, which is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 24, 2012 JUDGE
'anb'/sk
