Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma vs Sh. K.S.Mehra, Commisioner, Mcd & ... on 23 March, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 718/2010
Date of Decision:23rd March, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Rajoura, Adv.
versus
SH. K.S.MEHRA, COMMISIONER, MCD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. AS. Tuisam Shimray, Adv. for
Ms.Saroj Bidawat, Adv. for MCD.
Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for R-2/DDA.
Ms. Navratan Chaudhary, Adv. with
Ms.Titasha Banerjee, Mr. Hardik
Meena, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
: HIMA KOHLI, J (Oral)
1. The petitioner has approached this court seeking to restrain
respondent No.1/MCD from obstructing the construction work
undertaken by him on Plot No.B-46/1, Near Mangalam Hospital, West
Vinod Nagar, Delhi. Further, the petitioner has sought sanction of the
building plan submitted by him to the MCD on 30.04.2009.
2. On the last date of hearing, counsel for respondent No.2/DDA
had submitted that after perusing the documents furnished by the
petitioner and verifying the records available with the department, it
has transpired that the subject land falls in Khasra No.1336/837 that
stood acquired vide Award No.49C/70-71. However, physical
possession of the said land had not been handed over by the LAC to
the DDA. It was further submitted that the subject land was part of a
'park' as approved by a modified lay out plan for Vinod Nagar and that
Khasra No.1336/837 features at page No.9 of the Award. It was, thus,
submitted by counsel for respondent No.2/DDA that the question of
sanctioning the building plan by MCD in favour of the petitioner in
respect of the subject land which already stood acquired, does not
arise.
3. As for respondent No.1/MCD, it is submitted in the counter
affidavit that when the petitioner had submitted a building plan for
sanction of the competent authority on 30.04.2009, an invalid notice
had been issued by the department to the petitioner on 01.05.2009
and the second invalid notice was issued on 02.06.2009. However,
the petitioner had failed to reply to the same and further, he had failed
to remove the objections raised in the said notices. It is further
averred by the respondent No.1/MCD that the file of the petitioner for
sanctioning the building plan was sent to the Town Planning
Department of MCD and the same was returned with the remarks that
the property in question falls in the area earmarked as 'Park' as per
regularization plan prepared by DDA entitled 'modified layout plan for
Vinod Nagar'. Lastly, it is stated that in view of the non-compliance of
the invalid notice issued to the petitioner and considering the
observations of the Town Planning Department, the building plan
submitted by the petitioner for sanction was rejected on 17.12.2010
by the competent authority.
4. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection order, it was for
him to file an appeal against the said order as provided for in law.
Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed an appeal against the aforesaid
rejection order passed by the MCD. The question of directly
entertaining the present petition for sanction of the building plan
submitted by the petitioner to MCD on 30.04.2009, and rejected in the
year 2010, does not arise.
5. The present petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty
granted to the petitioner to assail the rejection order dated 17.12.2010
passed by the respondent No.1/MCD before the appropriate authority
in accordance with law. If the petitioner files such an appeal, as
provided for in the Statute, he shall be entitled to explain the delay by
invoking the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act by adverting
to the pendency of present proceedings.
(HIMA KOHLI)
Judge
MARCH 23, 2012
'anb'
