Urmil Kaushal vs Mcd And Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1834 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) 754/2011

                                                      Decided on: 16.03.2012
IN THE MATTER OF

URMIL KAUSHAL                                           ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Pushkar Sood, Advocate with
                       Mr. Arshad, Ali, Advocate

                  versus

MCD AND ANR.                                                 ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Standing Counsel
                       with Mr. Kirti Pal, Asstt. Engineer (Bldg.), Civil Lines
                       Zone, MCD
                       Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. Pursuant to the order dated 15.11.2011, Mr. Kirti Pal, Assistant

Engineer (Bldg.), Civil Lines Zone, MCD, has filed an affidavit dated

14.03.2012, explaining the non-compliance of the order dated 02.08.2011.

In view of the explanation offered and having regard to the unconditional

apology tendered by the deponent of the affidavit, the same is accepted.

2. An additional affidavit has been filed by Shri R.K. Jain, Assistant

Engineer (Bldg), Civil Lines Zone, MCD, placing on record the order dated

23.12.2011 passed in respect of the ground floor of premises No.24-A, DDA

Flats, MIG, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. As per the aforesaid order, respondent No.2

had carried out unauthorized construction beyond the permissible

additions/alterations in terms of the Ministry of Urban Development,

Government of India Notification dated 20.01.2003, that permitted certain

items of additions/alterations in DDA flats. It is further noticed in the said

order that the nature of illegal coverage by respondent No.2 has adversely

impacted the right to ventilation/air space of the first floor's owner, namely,

the petitioner. As a result, the aforesaid unauthorized construction was

booked for demolition by the MCD.

3. Counsel for respondent No.2 states that aggrieved by the

aforesaid demolition order dated 23.12.2011, respondent No.2 had filed an

appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, registered as Appeal No.1/2012,

wherein an order dated 05.03.2012 was passed, recording the statement of

respondent No.2 that he be granted a period of one month to reduce the

height of the GI/tin shed in the front and rear courtyard of his premises. The

aforesaid statement of respondent No.2 was duly noted by the Appellate

Tribunal, MCD in the order dated 05.03.2012 and a period of 20 days had

been given to respondent No.2 to reduce the height of the courtyard,

whereafter the officers of MCD were directed to inspect the property and

satisfy themselves. The next date of hearing fixed before the Appellate

Tribunal, MCD is 02.04.2012.

4. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is also

appearing before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and he confirms the fact that

respondent No.2 is in the process of removing the existing GI/tin shed in the

front and rear courtyard for reduction of its height.

5. In view of the aforesaid subsequent events, it is deemed

appropriate to dispose of the present petition with liberty granted to both

the parties to make their submissions before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD on

02.04.2012. The respondent No.1/MCD shall also be at liberty to inspect the

subject premises after respondent No.2 reduces the height of the courtyard

in the front and rear courtyards, in terms of the order dated 05.03.2012

passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

                                                        (HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH    16, 2012                                          JUDGE
rkb/mk