Mukesh Mehra vs Mcd & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 2232 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) 1683/2012

                                   Date of Decision: 30th March, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
MUKESH MEHRA                                         ..... Petitioner
                       Through:   Mr. Ravi D. Sharma, Adv. with
                                  petitioner in person.
                  versus
MCD & ORS                                          ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Adv. with Mr.R.P. Wadhwa, A.E., MCD.

Mr. Shariq Mohammed, Adv. with Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Adv. for R-2 along with S.I. Madan Lal (D/3491), P.S. Mianwali Nagar, New Delhi.

Mr. Rajesh Banati, Adv. with Mr.Sunil Verma, Adv. for R-3.

along with Ms.Sandhya Plha, R-3 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

: HIMA KOHLI,J (Oral)

1. Vide order dated 26.03.2012, notice was issued to respondent

No.3 for appearance today. Mr. Rajesh Banati, Advocate enters

appearance for Mrs. Sandhya Palha, W/o Rajiv Palha, R/o 9/300,

Sunder Vihar, New Delhi-110087, who is the owner of adjoining

property bearing No.A-56, Meera Bagh, New Delhi. He concedes that

the damage caused to the petitioner's premises as is apparent from a

perusal of the photographs enclosed with the writ petition, has

occurred due to the demolition work undertaken at the instance of his

client in her adjoining property.

2. Respondent No.3, who is present, expresses contrition at the

manner in which the demolition activity in respect of the built up

structure in her premises has been undertaken which has resulted in

causing extensive damage to the property of the petitioner. She

further assures the Court that the petitioner's premises shall be

repaired and restored to its original position to his satisfaction.

3. Counsel for respondent No.1/MCD hands over the status report

with a copy to the other side. As per the status report, the premises

of the petitioner and respondent No.3 were inspected by the area

officials on 27.03.2012 and during the course of inspection, it was

noticed that the owner of property No.A-56 was demolishing the old

and existing structure and that as per the record, there is no

sanctioned building plan in respect of the said property. It is stated by

learned counsel for respondent No.1/MCD that two of the photographs

enclosed with the status report are those of the petitioner's premises

while the middle one is that of respondent No.3. The aforesaid status

report is taken on record.

4. In view of the apology tendered by respondent No.3, Mrs.

Sandhya Palha and the assurance given by her that she shall restore

the premises of the petitioner to its original position and further,

having regard to the fact that the aforesaid offer has been accepted by

the petitioner, who is also present in Court, the present petition is

disposed of on the following terms:

i. Respondent No.3, Mrs. Sandhya Palha shall file an undertaking

that till the premises of the petitioner is repaired and restored by

her to its original condition, and a letter of satisfaction issued by

the petitioner, she shall not carry out any further demolition

activity in her premises. In the affidavit, respondent No.3, Mrs.

Sandhya Palha shall also tender a written apology to the

petitioner for all the inconvenience caused to him on her

account. The aforesaid undertaking shall be filed within two

weeks with a copy to the counsel for the petitioner and the

remaining respondents.

ii. Upon completion of the repair work in the premises of the

petitioner, he shall confirm the same in writing to respondent

No.1/MCD.

iii. Respondent No.1/MCD shall, in the meantime, ensure that

respondent No.3 does not take any further steps for undertaking

any demolition activity in her premises situated at A-56, Meera

Bagh, New Delhi.

iv. The local police shall also ensure that no further demolition

activity is undertaken at the premises of respondent No.3 till

respondent No.1/MCD confirms to it that it has received a letter

of satisfaction from the petitioner.

v. Further, till the petitioner issues a letter of satisfaction to the

MCD confirming the fact that respondent No.3/Mrs. Sandhya

Palha has restored his premises to its original position, it shall

not process the building plans, if any submitted by respondent

No.3 for sanction in respect of her premises at A-56, Meera

Bagh, New Delhi.

vi. It is agreed that as respondent No.3 shall tender a written

apology to the petitioner for the harassment and inconvenience

caused to him, the petitioner shall not initiate any further civil or

criminal proceedings against her on account of the damage

caused to his premises due to the demolition activity undertaken

by respondent No.3 in her premises.

5. The petition is disposed of with costs of `10,000/- imposed on

respondent No.3, Mrs. Sandhya Palha to be paid to the petitioner

within two weeks. Copy of proof of payment of costs shall be

furnished to respondent No.1/MCD while placing a copy thereof on

record along with the affidavit.

                                                         (HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH 30, 2012                                              Judge
'anb'/sk