Northern Credit And Collection ... vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 1971 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   W.P.(C) 1833/2010

                                    Date of Decision:22nd March, 2012


IN THE MATTER OF:
NORTHERN CREDIT AND COLLECTION BUISNESS PVT.LTD.
                                            ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Ms. Amrita Singh, Adv.

                    versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.        ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. P.K. Mittal, Adv. with Ms. Preeti Gupta, Adv. for DDA.

Mr. R.K. Saini, Adv. with Mr.Rajeev Kumar, Adv. for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

: HIMA KOHLI, J (Oral)

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for

directions to the respondents to permit free ingress and egress, to its

staff and the visitors, to commercial plot No.C-3, Block-A-1, Local

Shopping Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi.

2. Notice was issued on the present petition on 19.04.2010, on

which date, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that it had

participated in an auction conducted by the respondent No.1/DDA, for

the purchase of the subject plot for which a sum of `4,41,50,000/- had

been deposited by it with the DDA, whereafter, a conveyance deed had

been executed in its favour. After the physical possession of the

subject plot was handed over to the petitioner, construction was

raised over the plot and ever since then, the petitioner has been

operating its office from the subject plot.

3. The grievance raised by the petitioner herein is that the

respondent No.3/RWA has illegally and unauthorizedly raised the

height of the boundary wall of the local shopping centre beyond that

which had been stipulated by respondent No.1/DDA in the lay out

plan, i.e., from 0.85 mtrs.(2 ft.) to around 2.5 mtrs.(7 ft.). It was

contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the

raising of the boundary wall, the visibility of the commercial plot has

been completely blocked and the ingress and egress of the petitioner,

its staff and the visitors from the side of the 40 ft. road to the subject

plot has been obstructed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner had further submitted on 19.4.2010

that the passage earmarked in the layout plan adjoining the said plots

No.C-1, C-2 and C-3 and the approach road (40 ft. wide) via a plot

that had been allotted to a Mother Dairy (Milk Booth) was also blocked

by the boundary wall wherein, there was a small picket gate fixed by

respondent No.3/RWA without obtaining any prior permission from the

competent authority. The petitioner had contended that the Mother

Dairy (Milk Booth) had also carried out illegal and unauthorized

encroachments into the said passage thereby completely blocking the

passage and rendering it unfit for access by any vehicle. Due to the

aforesaid encroachment, the width of the passage had been reduced

drastically as opposed to a sanctioned 18 ft. width in terms of the lay

out plan of the respondent No.1/DDA. Lastly, it was submitted that

the ingress and egress to the car parking area from the other side of

the plot had also been blocked due to the illegal planting of trees, thus

rendering the aforesaid area useless due to various blockages therein.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid submission made by the counsel

for the petitioner, the respondents/MCD and DDA were directed to file

their status reports. On the same day, a Local Commissioner was also

appointed to visit the site, take photographs and ascertain the status

of the alleged blockage complained of by the petitioner.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Local Commissioner

submitted a report dated 01.05.2010 wherein it was stated that the

petitioner's plot was connected to the approach road by a small gate

and adjacent to the gate were two stairs leading to the Mother Dairy

Booth, partially blocking the ingress and egress to the gate. It was

further noticed by the Local Commissioner that there was a rod affixed

towards the lower end of the gate which made the access to the plot of

the petitioner possible only by foot.

7. Respondent No.1/DDA has filed a status report dated

25.02.2011 stating inter alia that the Junior Engineer (Commercial

Land), DDA had visited the site along with the Assistant Engineer (CL)

on 27.01.2011. As per the approved plan, a provision for 0.45 mtr.

high scheme boundary wall exists whereas, the same has been raised

at the site around Plots No.C-1,C-2 and C-3 upto 1.35 mtrs. with M.S.

grill. The status report further mentions that the entry from the

Mother Dairy (Milk Booth) side has been restricted by providing a steel

gate measuring 1 mtr. wide instead of free entrance of 10 ft. wide as

per the approved plan. The front parking in front of Plot No.C-1,C-2

and C-3 has been obstructed due to trees planted unauthorizedly. In

its counter affidavit dated 25.02.2011 respondent No.1/DDA, has

stated that DDA has transferred the area in question to the MCD and

that it is no longer concerned with the area in question.

8. The status report of respondent No.2/MCD dated 25.02.2011

mentions that respondent No.1/DDA had not clarified the height of the

boundary wall as well as the details of the gate and as and when the

same is clarified, MCD shall take appropriate action in accordance with

law. As regards the Mother Dairy(Milk Booth), it is stated that before

taking encroachment removal action, a letter had been issued to the

Head, Milk Sales Operation, Mother Dairy on 12.05.2010 and the same

had been replied to, wherein, it was submitted that the Mother Dairy

booths had been constructed in accordance with the standard

design/drawing duly approved by the DUAC (Delhi Urban Art

Commission) and applicable to construction of such booths all over

Delhi. Lastly, MCD has stated that an encroachment removal action

was fixed for 17.05.2010 and during the said action, encroachment in

and around the parking area had been removed.

9. Counsel for respondent No.3/RWA states that the RWA has

neither undertaken any of the unauthorized construction in the area as

pointed by the petitioner nor has it fixed a gate therein. He further

submits that respondent No.3 has not obstructed the free ingress or

the egress to the shopping complex where the subject plots are

situated.

10. In view of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of

respondent No.3/RWA, no directions are required to be issued against

the said respondent. Nor has the petitioner sought any relief against

the said respondent. Accordingly, respondent No.3/RWA is deleted

from the array of respondents. The petitioner shall file an amended

memo of parties within one week.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is deemed

appropriate to dispose of the present petition with directions to the

petitioner to first appear before Director (Commercial Land), DDA on

11.04.2012 at 3:30, who shall examine the grievance of the petitioner

with regard to the height of the boundary wall in the shopping complex

and address the said grievance by taking necessary remedial steps

within four weeks from 11.04.2012, under written intimation to the

petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner shall appear before the Executive

Engineer, MCD of the area on 16.04.2012 at 3:30 pm, who shall

examine the matter and ensure that all necessary steps are taken by

the MCD to remove the obstruction to the subject plot and ensure the

free ingress and egress to the shopping complex as per the lay out

plan, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four

weeks from 16.04.2012, under written intimation to the petitioner,

within two weeks therefrom. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by

inaction on the part of the any of the aforesaid authorities, it shall be

entitled to seek its remedies as per law.

12. The petition is disposed of.

(HIMA KOHLI) Judge MARCH 22, 2012 'anb'