Delhi High Court
Ajay Kumar And Anr vs Harbans Lal Bhatia And Ors on 19 September, 2013
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4141/2012 & CM APPL. NO. 8613/2012
AJAY KUMAR AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Avninder Singh, Adv.
versus
HARBANS LAL BHATIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Suman Kumar, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition has been moved by the petitioners alleging illegal
and unauthorized construction of property bearing No.D-11, Jharoda Main
Road, Hardev Nagar, Burari, New Delhi-110084. It was, inter alia, alleged
that the construction being raised at the site in question is wholly
unauthorized and without sanction of law.
2. It was further alleged that the building is dangerous and is a threat to
the safety of the petitioners who live in the adjacent house. The matter has
been pending in Court ever since July, 2012 and, after show cause notice
was issued to the respondents, the MCD informed the court that the property
in question had been booked after inspection and action in terms of the
MCD Act and Rules had been initiated. This court also directed affidavits to
be filed by the concerned Junior Engineer of the area to give details as to
how the construction was allowed in the absence of any sanctioned plan and
that too upto the third floor. The presence of the Junior Engineer was also
directed by this court, looking to the contention of the petitioners that there
appears to be connivance of the officials of the MCD in the matter.
3. Today, counsel for North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) has
handed over an action taken report in the form of an affidavit of Sh.Kapil
Gupta, Executive Engineer (Building), Civil Line Zone, pointing out that
since the regularization application as well as the appeal against the
demolition orders in connection with the property in question, has been
rejected, the demolition of the property was carried out on 16th September,
2013. It is also stated as follows:
"During the course of action, three panels of RCC Slab at
second floor and one panel of RCC Slab at first floor have
been demolished with the help of local police and the second
floor was made inhabitable. The photographs of demolition
action are enclosed for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court as
Annexure-A."
4. The said affidavit is taken on record. A perusal of the photographs,
and the affidavit shows that some portions of the roof slabs have been
broken. However, the construction in question which appears to be
extensive and in which a large quantity of reinforced concrete along with
steel has been used, is still standing on the spot. The MCD is directed to
carry out its decisions to demolish in full in every respect. The standing
structure shall be completely demolished and no part of the debris shall be
allowed to remain on spot.
5. These directions are being made specially since counsel for the
NDMC has not been able to show me any rule, regulation, statute or
precedent to the effect that the scope of demolition ordered by the NDMC
itself is limited only to puncturing certain walls and roof slabs and breaking
certain portions of the standing structure, leaving the rest as it is. To my
mind, to leave a structure in this condition is not only precarious and
hazardous, the same also invites offenders to repair and re-build the same
once again. Consequently, NDMC will ensure that nothing remains at the
site in question within six weeks from today.
6. Counsel for the petitioners states that under the circumstances, he
does not press the petition any further.
7. Consequently, the petition, along with the accompanying application,
is disposed off in the above terms.
8. It would, of course, be open to the NDMC to recover all charges with
regard to the demolition and removal of malba etc. from the person or
persons concerned as per rules.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
ak
