Delhi High Court
Chirag Saini vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 3 June, 2021
$~21
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.06.2021
+ W.P.(C) 3500/2021 & CM APPL.10596/2021
CHIRAG SAINI ..... Petitioner
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
.....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ikrant Sharma, Ms. Divya Upadhyay and Ms. Shweta
Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Namrata Mukim, Standing Counsel, North DMC with
Ms. Garima Jindal, Advocate for R-1 & 2.
Ms. Anya Singh, Advocate for R-3/SHO P.S.Civil Lines.
Mr. Lalit Gupta and Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advocates for
the co-owner Intervenor/Ms. Navita Aggarwal.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a mandamus against respondents North Delhi
Municipal Corporation and the SHO, Police Station Civil Lines to
demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorised construction being
carried out by builders on the property No.21 & 21-A, Raj Niwas
Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 3500/2021 Digitally Signed 1
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.06.2021
Signing Date:03.06.2021 20:19:47 19:32
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that petitioner is a follower of
Christianity and visits the church on weekly basis since his childhood
and is the Chairperson of Christian Fellowship Trust and is also the
President of an NGO under the name of Atulit Foundation. Petitioner
contends that illegal construction is being carried out in property
bearing No.21 and 21-A, Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi.
4. It is contended by the petitioner that as per his sources he has
come to know that the subject property earlier belonged to Baptist
Church Trust Association.
5. In the petition the names of the trustees have also been
disclosed and it is alleged that the property has been sold in the year
2005 to the Aggarwal family. Petitioner has also stated that the
property was sold by way of two separate documents which were
registered. It is alleged that the property is being constructed in
connivance with the officers of the Municipal Corporation.
6. When petitioner was enquired about the locus standi of the
petitioner to file the subject petition, petitioner has not been able to
show any connection with the subject property. It is an admitted
position that petitioner does not reside in the neighbourhood of the
subject property. Petitioner resides in Arya Pura Subzi Mandi near
Roshnara Road and the subject property is in Civil Lines, Delhi which
is separated by several kms.
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 3500/2021 Digitally Signed 2
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.06.2021
Signing Date:03.06.2021 20:19:47 19:32
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
7. Perusal of the document of registration of the Christian
Fellowship Trust shows that the document was executed on a stamp
paper purchased on 25.02.2021 and executed on 03.03.2021. Subject
petition has been filed on 15.03.2021. It appears that the said
document has been created solely to create an impression that
petitioner has some association with Christian community.
8. Mr. Lalit Gupta, Advocate intervenes on behalf of Ms. Navita
Aggarwal and submits that she is one of the owners of the subject
property. He submits that his enquiry from the Delhi High Court
website has revealed that petitioner had filed as many as 11 writ
petitions in the Registry against inter alia the North Delhi Municipal
Corporation out of which 10 petitions have been returned under
objections and don't seem to have been re-filed and the subject
petition is the 11th petition as per the status report available on the
High Court website.
9. Ms. Mukim, learned counsel appearing for the North Delhi
Municipal Corporation submits that she has received instructions that
the department has received advance notices in 18 cases since 2019,
but most of the cases have not been listed. She submits that petitioner
appears to be a habitual litigant and is filing cases after cases.
10. On merits of the case she submits that there is a sanctioned
building plan for raising construction on the subject property and till
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 3500/2021 Digitally Signed 3
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.06.2021
Signing Date:03.06.2021 20:19:47 19:32
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
date no deviation has been noticed by the Corporation from the
sanctioned building plan.
11. She submits that in the present pandemic if frivolous petitions
are filed by persons unconnected with the properties without
verification of correct facts, it would entail the officers of the
Corporation to travel and carry out inspection thus exposing them to
risk.
12. She submits that the petition does not disclose any cause as to
why subject petition has been filed since there is no breach of any
building bye-law and the construction is being raised after sanction of
a building plan.
13. Perusal of the petition further shows that the contentions raised
by the petitioner is with regard to an alleged illegal sale by the owner
of the property i.e. the trust. It is pointed out by Mr. Lalit Gupta,
learned counsel appearing for Ms. Navita Aggarwal that the property
was owned by a company and was purchased from a company and not
from any trust.
14. He further points out that there is no challenge to any ones title
but, the challenge is only to raising of an illegal unauthorised
construction.
15. As stated by learned counsel appearing for the Municipal
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 3500/2021 Digitally Signed 4
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.06.2021
Signing Date:03.06.2021 20:19:47 19:32
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Corporation that there is a sanctioned building plan and there is no
deviation as of now noticed by the Corporation to warrant any action
to be taken at this stage.
16. The petition clearly has been filed for certain ulterior motives.
Petitioner clearly does not have any connection with the subject
property nor is a neighbour who is affected by the subject property.
17. There is also nothing stated in the petition as to on what basis
petitioner alleges that there was a trust and the subject property has
been sold by the trust or any illegal construction is being raised.
18. Since there is a sanctioned building plan, it is clear that
Petitioner has filed this petition without verifying any fact.
19. Further, the averments in the petition also do not inspire any
confidence. Accordingly, I am not inclined to entertain the petition.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be
paid to the "PM Cares Fund". Receipt of deposit of costs be
furnished to the Registry within a period of four weeks from today.
20. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court
Master.
JUNE 3, 2021/rk SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 3500/2021 Digitally Signed 5
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.06.2021
Signing Date:03.06.2021 20:19:47 19:32
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
