Delhi High Court
Aviral Bhatla vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 23 February, 2021
$~42
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.02.2021
+ W.P(C) 2323/2021 & CM APPL. 6770-71/2021
AVIRAL BHATLA ..... Petitioner
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel, SDMC.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns vacation notices dated 11.02.2020,
01.02.2021 and demolition order dated 04.12.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action seems
to have been taken based on some building plan dated 03.12.2010. He
submits that the property has been constructed as per sanctioned plan
dated 17.05.2000.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already
filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal MCD which was listed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:24.02.2021 09:25:16 W.P(C) 2323/2021 Page 1
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
on 11.03.2020 when notice was issued to the Corporation, returnable
for 11.03.2020 and as none appeared for the Corporation on
11.03.2020 and the matter was adjourned to 24.03.2020 directing the
Corporation to file a status report.
5. Learned counsel submits that thereafter on account of
nationwide lockdown the appeal has not been taken up for hearing and
today the Appellate Tribunal MCD is not functional.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the owner of the
lower ground floor has already filed an appeal and there is a status
quo order with regard to his property by the Appellate Tribunal MCD.
7. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing
for the respondent/Corporation. Learned counsel submits that property
was inspected and deviation contrary to sanction plan was found from
basement upto the third floor.
8. In view of the fact that petitioner has already filed an appeal
before the Appellate Tribunal MCD and the appeal has not been taken
up for consideration for the reasons stated afore-stated, this petition is
disposed of with a direction that for a period of two weeks after the
commencement of the functioning of the Appellate Tribunal MCD or
till the time the appeal/stay application of the petitioner is taken up for
consideration by the Appellate Tribunal MCD, whichever is earlier,
no action of demolition shall be taken against the subject property.
9. The continuation of protection thereafter shall be subject to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:24.02.2021 09:25:16 W.P(C) 2323/2021 Page 2
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
orders to be passed by the Appellate Tribunal MCD. It is clarified that
the Appellate Tribunal MCD would be free to decide the appeal/stay
application without being influenced by anything stated here in.
10. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
FEBRUARY 23, 2021
rk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:24.02.2021 09:25:16 W.P(C) 2323/2021 Page 3
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
