Shakuntla Gautam vs South Delhi Municipal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6495 Del

$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                          Judgment delivered on: 16.11.2017
+       W.P.(C) 4896/2014
        SHAKUNTLA GAUTAM                                        ..... Petitioner
                                  versus

        SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
        CORPORATION & ORS.                                      ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr Sunny Choudhary, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr Aarif Khan, Md Hannan, Mr Raises Ahmed and Mr Aamid Ali and Mr Jitender.

Mr Sanjeev Khawal, Advocate for Noticee No.1 to 14.

Ms Megha Bharara for Ms Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R-3 & 4.

Mr Kunal Tandon, Advocate for Mr Sanjeev Narang, Noticee.

Mr Yatish Mohan, Advocate for alleged contemnor.

Mr K.Venkatraman for Mr Hitender Chauhan and Mr Ashwani Kumar, contemnor in person.

SI Rajender Singh, PS Malviya Nagar. Mr Tushar Singh, Advocate for Mr Ahmed Sadiq, Noticee.

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

CM No.26359/2017(exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4896/2014

1. The writ petitioner claims several directions; principally a direction to the respondents, i.e. the municipal and legal authorities to initiate action towards sealing and demolition of unauthorized construction of properties in 11 buildings in Panchsheel Vihar and Kirkhi Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017.

2. The orders of 04.03.2015 and the subsequent orders - notably the orders dated 28.09.2016 and 09.11.2016, show that the Court noticed that they were independent unauthorized construction, which continued unabated in the 11 properties, that were subject matter of the proceedings. In these circumstances, on 09.11.2016, the Court directed the counsel for the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) to keep a close watch and take immediate action, wherever seals in the properties affixed earlier were removed.

3. Accordingly, pursuant to the directions, the SDMC filed a status report on 21.02.2017.

4. After considering the status report, the Court being of the opinion that the construction of the properties unhampered and removal of seals amounted to Contempt of Court and accordingly, issued notice to the occupiers of the said 11 buildings. The Court noted on 26.07.2017 as follows:-

"Learned counsel for some of the occupants who were issued with contempt notices on 25.04.2017 are

present in Court. According to them, no particulars relating to the contempt alleged have been furnished.

The Registry shall furnish a copy of the status report dated 24.05.2016 along with the action taken/status report on behalf of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) dated 27.09.2016 as well as the affidavit of the first respondent/SDMC dated 21.02.2017 with the relevant annexures in electronic form to all counsels for the respondents who have appeared today. These electronic materials shall be furnished to the learned counsels as and when they approach the Registry.

Sh. Gaurang Kanth, learned counsel for the SDMC shall prepare a tabular chart disclosing the dates of sealing in respect of each of the 11 properties and the residential houses thereof, and correlate them with copies of orders filed with the tabular chart. These documents shall be supported by affidavits and all of them shall be filed in Court within two weeks; copies thereof shall be furnished to learned counsels for the occupants who are present in Court today. Learned counsel for the occupiers shall furnish their addresses and contact numbers.

The Court clarifies that the personal appearance of noticees is not necessary unless specifically called for.

List on 20.09.2017."

5. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Court, several counsels have appeared and are present in Court, in response to the notice served upon them. The names of individuals served with notices are as follows:-

"Mr./Ms.

          Vinod Chauhan      Served
          Rushed Ahmed       Served
          Sadiq
          Jagabir Singh      Served
          Mukesh             Served
          Virender Raizada   Served
          Sudha Rani         Served
          Suraj Prakash      Served
          Kansal
          Shabiya Manzoor    Served
          Lalite Raj         Served
          Rayees Ahemed      Served
          Asrif Khan         Served
          Mohd. Hannan       Served
          Vinay & Rekha      Served
          Bajaj
          Sandeep Narang     Served
          Ashwani Kumar      Served
          Hitender Chauhan   Served
          Raj Kumar          Served
          Kanwar Bhan        Served
          Bhaskar Koli       Served
          Mohd. Aslam        Served
          Sujata             Served
          Pankaj             Served
          Sunil Kumar        Served
          Manish Kumar       Served
          Naveen Kumar       Served
          Anita Yadav        Served
          Nirdosh Jain       Served
          Arti Gera          Served
          Madan Mohan        Served
          Rout
          Laxman Bisht       Served

All other persons/contemnors - Unserved -with report- not resides/door locked/not present, etc."

6. The following are the details of the properties including name of the party, who have occupied the properties :- (A) Mr Yatish Mohan, Advocate is appearing on behalf of the following: -

(i) Madan Mohan Rout B-81 III Floor Flat No.2 Kha No.136 Panchsheel Vihar.

(ii) Mr Jitendra Kumar Medirattha -occupier Purchased from Manoj Kumar Flat No. 1, House No. B-81 Kha No. 136, Ground Floor.

(iii) Nirdosh Jain

House No. B-81 Kha No. 136, Ground Floor.

(iv) Sunita Yadav - Occupier Purchased from Vinod Saini Flat situated at 4th Floor House No.B-81, Panchsheel Vihar.

        (v)     Flat Occupier - Amrik Singh
                B-81 LGF left Side

(B)     Mr Mukesh Sharma and Ms Deepika Kaushik, Advocates - B-
        78, Panhsheel Vihar

(C)     Mr Yogendra Kumar for Mr Vinod Kumar Chauhan,

Advocate - B-13, Panchsheel Vihar.

(D) Mr Hamid Ali & Mr Jitender Kumar, Advocates

-Asif, Md. Hanan and Mr. Rayees Ahemed - owners - Building No. S-24, III floor and II floors owner

(E) Mr Subrahamanyam BKV, Advocate -

(i) T-41, Khirki Extension for Basement, Ground floor, I floor and III floor

(ii) Property No. JG-17 Khirki Extension Noticee 1 to 14

(iii) Dr. Virender Raizada T-41, Ground, I floor and Basement Khirki Extension

(iv) Mr Lalit Mohan T-41, III Floor, Khirki Extension

(F) Mr. Sanjeev Kansal, Advocate -

Property No. JG-17 Khirki Extension Noticee 1 to 14

7. Having regard to the above, it is clear that the individual occupants - or at least those who, according to the MCD, have flouted the Court, are before us.

8. According to the records, by and large, in T-41, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, one of the properties in question, the premises, forming part of the ground, first and second floor, are protected in terms of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Amendment Act, 2014. As far as the

other portions of the premises are concerned, the SDMC is free to proceed.

9. Likewise, report also indicates that B-64, Panchsheel Vihar, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017, appears to be protected (in the same manner upto second floor).

10. The Court was informed that notices were also served upon occupants of B-63 & 63A, Panchsheel Vihar, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017, which, however, do not figure in the list and are not subject-matter of these proceedings.

11. In light of the above discussion, in case the occupants of the above premises or the above individuals have any wish, it is open to them to represent to the concerned official, the Executive Engineer, who will then pass appropriate orders. The representation/petition, if any, explaining why sealing and demolition action be not taken, should, however, be furnished to the Executive Engineer within three weeks from today.

12. The Executive Engineer, after making such enquiries, as are necessary, and taking such other steps including appropriate proceedings, i.e. after considering the documents presented, shall pass suitable orders in accordance with law.

13. In case of any grievance, the concerned occupants shall approach the Tribunal under Section 347 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

14. The Tribunal, in such event, shall decide the Appeals before it expeditiously and in any event within four months from the date of their filing.

15. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

16. List on 10th January, 2018 to consider the Action Taken Report to be filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) - one week before the date of hearing.

17. In the event MCD decides to take any action towards demolition, the Delhi Police is directed to cooperate and ensure availability of such personnel, as is necessary.

18. Order Dasti to the parties.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

SANJEEV SACHDEVA (JUDGE)

NOVEMBER 16, 2017 'Sn'