Delhi High Court
Hoshiar Singh vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 24 January, 2022
$~23
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24.01.2022
+ W.P.(C) 7025/2021 & CM APPL. 22196/2021, 39791/2021 &
42856/2021
HOSHIAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohit Sharma and Mr. Imran Ahmad, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, ASC for R-1/SDMC.
Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Advocate for R-3.
Mr. Naresh Gupta and Mr. Shantanu Aggarwal, Advocates
for R-5.
Mr. Rajinder Singh and Mr. Ashish Rana, Advocates for R-
11,13 to 15.
Mr. Sujeet Beniwal, Advocate for R-12.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to take action
against alleged illegal, unauthorized construction being raised by
respondent No.3 in property No.91-C, Gali No.4, Krishna Nagar, New
Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 7025/2021 Digitally Signed 1
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:24.01.2022
Signing Date:24.01.2022 22:54:12 20:08
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that
respondent No.3 is owner of property No.101 and not 91-C and he has
a sanction plan for raising construction on property No.101.
4. He further submits that by a subsequent order dated 10.12.2021,
the sanction plan has been revoked and he has already filed an appeal
before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and by order dated 23.12.2021,
the Appellate Tribunal, MCD has directed status quo to be maintained
in respect of the said property.
5. He submits that no construction activity is being carried out in
the subject property at the present time as the structure is already
complete.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
contention of respondent that he is owner of property No.101 is
incorrect as from the site plan it is quite clear that petitioner is
physically in occupation of property No.91-C and the construction was
being raised in property No.91-C.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.11, 13 to 15
submits that they are co-owners of property No.91-C and respondent
No.3 is raising construction on property No.91-C under the garb of
claiming it to be property No.101.
8. This is disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3.
9. Since the sole relief in the subject petition was with regard to a
direction to the respondent Corporation to take action against alleged
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 7025/2021 Digitally Signed 2
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:24.01.2022
Signing Date:24.01.2022 22:54:12 20:08
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
illegal, unauthorised construction and the respondent Corporation has
already revoked the sanction plan and is taking further action in
accordance with law. Further, it may be noticed that respondent No.3
has already availed of its remedy by way of an appeal before the
Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
10. Accordingly this petition is disposed of with a direction to the
Corporation to take further action in accordance with law subject to
the outcome of the appeal.
11. It is directed that in case any further action is called for against
the property of respondent No.3 in terms of the order of the MCD
Appellate Tribunal, respondent Corporation shall expeditiously take
the same.
12. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
commented upon the merits of the contention of the petitioner or
respondent No.3 with regard to the identity of the subject property.
13. Further, petitioner as also respondent Nos.11, 13 to 15 are given
liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal, MCD for the purposes of
impleadment. On such an application being filed, the Appellate
Tribunal, MCD shall consider the same in accordance with law
without being influenced by anything stated herein.
14. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court
Master.
JANUARY 24, 2022/rk SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 7025/2021 Digitally Signed 3
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:24.01.2022
Signing Date:24.01.2022 22:54:12 20:08
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
