$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04th January, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 100/2022 & CM. APPLS. 237-238/2022
RAMESH CHANDRA ..... Petitioner
versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.N. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Mahender Shukla,
Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks quashing of revocation order dated 15.12.2021, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of sanction of building plan for construction of second and third floor of property number 59, Sukh Vihar, Delhi has been revoked. Petitioner further seeks a restraint on the respondent from carrying out demolition proceedings qua the property.
W.P.(C) 100/2022 1
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:04.01.2022
Signing Date:04.01.2022 19:22:21 17:19
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had become owner of the roof rights above the first floor by way of a registered sale deed dated 20.02.2001, which was executed by his father in his favour.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had accordingly applied for sanction of a building plan for raising construction of the second and third floor.
5. Learned counsel submits that once the plan was sanctioned, construction was raised over the second and third floor. However, subsequently, a complaint was allegedly filed by someone claiming that the signatures of the father of the petitioner on the application for sanction of the building plan were forged.
6. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had not forged any signatures. However, he submits that as per the extant policy of the Corporation, floor-wise sanction is permissible.
7. Learned counsel submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, petitioner is willing to apply for regularization of the construction already made as has been permitted by the revocation order dated 15.12.2021.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that in case a regularization application is filed expeditiously, the same shall be disposed of in a time-bound manner.
W.P.(C) 100/2022 2
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:04.01.2022
Signing Date:04.01.2022 19:22:21 17:19
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
9. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall file an application seeking regularization of the second and third floor within a period of 15 days from today.
10. The petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move an application for regularization of the building plan within a period of 15 days. On such an application being filed and being in order, respondent shall disposed of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application.
11. Subject to the application being filed by the Petitioner within fifteen days, till the time application is disposed of, no coercive action shall be taken against the property of the petitioner. Coercive action, if any, thereafter shall be subject to orders to be passed by the Corporation on the regularization application.
12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
13. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through e-mail by the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JANUARY 4, 2022 NA
W.P.(C) 100/2022 3 Digitally Signed Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA MAGGU Signing Date:04.01.2022 Signing Date:04.01.2022 19:22:21 17:19 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
