Delhi High Court
Sabreena Talwar vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 24 October, 2016
$~42.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 585/2016
Date of decision: 24th October, 2016
SABREENA TALWAR ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Prerna Mehta, Advocate.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
(ADMINISTRATION) AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
Appellant-Sabreena Talwar impugns order dated 19th September,
2016 whereby Writ Petition (C) No. 7041/2016 filed by her has been
dismissed.
2. Having examined the impugned order and considered the argument
raised, we do not find any reason to interfere.
3. Vijay Kumar Mathur, respondent No. 4 herein, as a proposing
member and allottee/owner of flat No. 1397 with consent certificates from
secondary members, namely, Sarad Kapoor, owner of flat No. 1398,
Shabana Zaidi, owner of flat No. 1399 and K.C. Katoch, owner of flat No.
1400 in accordance with the scheme dated 15th February, 2016 of the Delhi
Development Authority, vide application dated 29.02.2016 had applied to
the South Delhi Municipal Corporation for construction of a lift in the
DDA flats at Vasant Kunj. The fourth respondent, it is stated, has
undergone knee replacement surgery and is residing on the second floor.
Other owner/occupants are also old and aged, who require a lift.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one A.P. Revi, owner
of flat No. 1396 has filed Writ Petition (C) No. 7682/2012 in which the
LPA No. 585/2016 Page 1 of 4
question of structural stability of the existing structure is raised and is
pending consideration. This writ petition also relates to unauthorised
construction carried out by the fourth respondent herein. In this petition Dr.
G.V. Ramana, Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi has filed the
report dated 15.02.2016. He has concluded:-
"Conclusions:
Based on the fact that DDA has not indicated that strengthening
has been carried out in Block 5 and the fact that visual evidence
of strengthening is not observed at site, it becomes apparent that
strengthening of foundations of Block 5 where flat No. 1396 is
located, has not been carried out. In addition, it is concluded that
there is no further reason to undertake excavation for
confirmation of strengthening in a block where it was never
claimed by DDA that strengthening has been carried out.
The assessment of the structural stability of the foundation (as on
date) cannot be made solely on the basis necessary for the
regulating agency to assess whether the construction carried out
later above the fourth floor complies with the prescribed
standards. In case of non-compliance, the increase in the loads
would require a complete structural analysis to ensure that the
building meets the current revised standards and that the
foundations are structurally stable."
A reading of the conclusions of Professor G.V. Ramana reflects that
he has not opined about the structural stability of the existing building or its
foundation. It has been stated that the strengthening of the foundations of
Block No. 5 where flat No. 1396 is constructed has not been carried out.
5. As per the findings recorded by the single Judge, which are
undisputed, the lift is being constructed in a separate structure and has an
independent foundation. The existing foundation of the flats is not affected
or altered. The South Delhi Municipal Corporation, while granting
permission vide letter dated 29.03.2016 took notice of the certificates
furnished by the architect and also the structural engineer. The
undertakings given by the architect, Deepak Gupta, and the structural
LPA No. 585/2016 Page 2 of 4
engineer, Sushil Kumar, are on record. The fourth respondent has given an
indemnity bond. The resumption/completion of works letter from
respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 4 dated 01.08.2016 also notes and
acknowledges subsequent certificate issued by Dharampal Babbar,
Structural Engineer, who has affirmed on the structural safety.
6. The said A.P. Revi, it appears, had initially raised objection to the
construction of the lift. However, his subsequent undated note on the
question of construction of the lift states that there should be transparency
on the question of lift installation even if the DDA/SDMC did not require
consent from all residents of the quadrangle of Block V. The question of
flat security, maintenance, regular site cleaning arrangement should be duly
taken into consideration. Noticeably A.P. Revi, subsequent to the
resumption notice dated 01.08.2016, did not file any application
questioning the construction of the existing lift. The South Delhi Municipal
Corporation are satisfied.
7. On enquiry put forth, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the foundation of the lift, though separate, is at a distance of about 20-25
cms from the existing foundation of the flats. It is submitted that the new
construction would affect the structural stability of the foundation of the
flats in Block V because movement of the lift would cause vibrations.
These are technical matters, which have been examined by the South Delhi
Municipal Corporation and by the architect and the structural engineers.
There is nothing on record to show that the opinions given by the architect
and the structural engineers are erroneous or technically questionable. The
appellant has not obtained any contrary technical opinion. Technical
literature is also not relied upon or referred to.
8. In the aforesaid position, we do not find any reason and cause to
accept the submission made.
9. It is clarified that the dismissal of the present Letters Patent Appeal
LPA No. 585/2016 Page 3 of 4
would not be construed as expression of opinion on any aspects/matters or
issue, which are the subject matter of Writ Petition (C) No. 7682/2012,
titled A.P. Revi versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Others.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
OCTOBER 24, 2016
VKR
