Gasta Cooperative Group Housing ... vs Shri T P Pandey (Since Deceased) ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 1665 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                               Date of Decision: 27.3.2014
+        CM(M) 1231/2013 & CM No.18072/2013
         GASTA COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
                                                  ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Kunal Kalra, Adv.

                           versus

         SHRI T P PANDEY (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS
                                               ..... Respondents

                           Through:    None.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

%        MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)

1. The present petition impugns an order of 16.7.2013 which reads as

under:

"It is submitted that the personal hearings regarding the unauthorized construction are going on in DDA.

DDA has filed the details regarding the unauthorized construction on 26.11.2012.

Put up for Action Taken Report for removal of the unauthorized construction as mentioned in the list provided by DDA on 4.10.2013."

2. The respondents (plaintiffs) had filed a suit seeking a decree of

declaration that the wall constructed by the petitioner, dividing

bifurcating the roof/terrace of the building within the compound of the

petitioner Society be declared as illegal and a decree of mandatory

injunction be passed for removing the same. The petitioner claims that

the construction was raised pursuant to grant of due permissions by the

Society and they were estopped from seeking removal of the construction

since it had been raised with due authority. While the evidence was being

recorded, the Trial Court sought for status report from the DDA apropos

the unauthorized construction. The petitioner contends that seeking for

an action taken report for removal of unauthorized construction, as

mentioned in the list provided by the DDA on 4.10.2013, would be

prejudging the issue and in effect would provide the final relief to the

plaintiff. He says that this would cause immense prejudice and therefore

the impugned order should be stayed.

3. This court is of the view that the action taken report of the DDA

would be in statutory compliance of its duty in law. There was and could

be no application seeking restraint against a statutory body from

discharging its statutory duties.

4. Perusal of the orders shows that the Court itself had not directed

the removal of unauthorized construction. It notes that personal hearings

regarding unauthorized construction was going on before the DDA.

Should a party be aggrieved by an order of a statutory authority, it would

always have occasion to seek redressal against the same before the forum

prescribed in law.

5. This petition is without any basis or merit. The impugned order

does not suffer from material irregularities warranting interference by

this court in its revisionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J MARCH 27, 2014/acm