Delhi High Court
Suresh Gupta vs Mcd And Ors on 17 January, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1972/2011 and CMs 4189/2011,
4729/2011, 12216/2011
Decided on: 17.01.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
SURESH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate
versus
MCD AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, ASC for
R-1/MCD with Mr. J.S. Yadav, AE.
Mr. Sumit Chander, Advocate for R-2 & R-3.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg and Mr. Fazal Ahmed,
Advocates for R-4 and R-5 with R-4 in person.
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate for R-7.
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 respondents No.1 to 3 to ensure that the unauthorized
construction being raised by respondents No.4 and 5 over plot No.A-616,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi is demolished, with a further relief that respondents
No.4 and 5 be allowed to raise any construction on the aforesaid plot only
after obtaining a sanctioned building plan from respondent No.1/MCD.
2. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated
24.03.2011. On the very same day, counsel appearing for respondent
No.1/MCD on advance copy stated that upon receiving the complaint from
the petitioner, the property in question had been inspected and was
booked for unauthorized construction. Respondent No.1/MCD was
directed to file an affidavit to report the action taken in respect of the
unauthorized construction. Respondent No.3/SHO of the area was also
directed to ensure that no construction takes place on the property
without a sanctioned building plan.
3. On 04.04.2011, respondents No.4 and 5 filed an interim application,
registered as CM 4729/2011, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had
lodged a complaint in respect of the unauthorized construction being
carried out by the applicants in the subject premises bearing No.A-616,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi but he was permitting construction in another portion
of the same property by the owner thereof, namely, Smt.Chanchal Goel
and Sh. Vijender Jain, who, it was stated are related to the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner denied the aforesaid submission and stated that
he had no objection for the directions to be issued to respondent
No.1/MCD to remove the unauthorized construction in any other portion
of the subject premises as well.
4. It is pertinent to note that an amended memo of parties was also
filed alongwith the aforesaid application filed by respondents No.4 & 5
seeking impleadment of the aforesaid two persons as co-respondents.
While the petitioner is oblivious of the aforesaid amended memo of
parties filed alongwith the aforesaid application, counsel for the applicants
submits that he did not sign the aforesaid application, which was filed by
respondent No.4, Sh.Brijesh Gupta, who is himself an advocate.
Respondent No.4 is present in Court and tenders an apology for the
aforesaid improprietly and assures the Court that he shall be more careful
in future.
5. In the status report filed by respondent No.1/MCD on 05.01.2012, it
is averred that the subject premises was inspected and unauthorized
construction in the shape of a hall on the ground floor and raising of wall
and columns on the ground floor and first floor were noticed in property
No.A-616, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. The said unauthorized construction was
booked on 21.03.2011 and after following due process of law, demolition
orders were passed. Thereafter, demolition action was taken and the
building was made inhabitable.
6. As regards the unauthorized construction existing in the adjacent
property No.A-616/1, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, it is averred in the affidavit
that there existed a room, kitchen, toilet on the ground floor to third floor,
which was booked on 02.09.2011 and that a demolition order has already
been passed in respect thereto. Thereafter, sealing proceedings were
initiated by respondent No.1/MCD and sealing orders passed on
16.09.2011 and the property was sealed on the same day. However, it is
conceded that demolition action in respect of the unauthorized
construction in the aforesaid portion of the subject premises has not
taken place till date. The Court is assured that necessary steps shall be
taken for demolishing the said unauthorized construction in a time bound
manner.
7. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate, states that he has been engaged by
respondent No.7, Smt. Chanchal Goyal, co-owner of the adjacent property
and has been instructed to state that only yesterday, an appeal has been
preferred against the aforesaid demolition order before respondent
No.1/MCD.
8. Having regard to the submission made by the counsel for
respondent No.1/MCD, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present
petition with the following directions:-
(i) Respondent No.1/MCD shall consider the application of respondent
No.7/Smt. Chanchal Goyal for regularization as per law and dispose
of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
period four weeks from today.
(ii) In case the decision taken is adverse to the applicants, the same
shall be communicated to them and appropriate action for removal
of the unauthorized construction shall be taken after expiry of two
weeks from the date of passing of such an order.
(iii) Respondents No.4 and 5 shall ensure that no further construction is
carried out on the subject premises without obtaining a sanctioned
building plan from respondent No.1/MCD.
(iv) Respondent No.1/MCD and respondent No.3/SHO of the area shall
ensure that none of the parties carry out any construction on the
subject premises without obtaining sanctioned building plans from
respondent No.1/MCD.
(v) Respondents No.4 and 5 shall raze to the ground the remaining
unauthorized construction existing in their portion of the premises
within two weeks. If the same is not removed within the stipulated
time, respondent No.1/MCD shall take necessary steps for removal
thereof in accordance with law while recovering the expenses for
the said action from respondents No.4 and 5.
9. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.
DASTI to the counsel for respondent No.1/MCD.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JANUARY 17, 2012 JUDGE
rkb
