Delhi High Court
Nagma Sheerin And Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 24 June, 2024
Author: Dharmesh Sharma
Bench: Dharmesh Sharma
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24.06.2024
+ LPA 504/2024 & CM APPLs. 35484/2024 & 35485/2024
NAGMA SHEERIN AND ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Anam Siddiqui with Mr. Archit
Jain and Mr. Dhananjai Shekhawat,
Advocates.
(M): 9462816006
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
counsel for respondent/MCD.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD
with Mr. Yash Upadhyay, Advocate
for respondent no. 2 & 6.
(M): 9871160559
Email:
[email protected]
Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Standing counsel
with Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Advocate
for respondent no. 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 35485/2024 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
LPA 504/2024 & CM APPL. 35484/2024
3. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 14th
June, 2024 passed by the learned Vacation Bench in W.P.(C) No.
8641/2024, wherein, the learned Single Judge did not grant any interim
relief in favour of the appellants herein.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the lives of
18 families are at stake, as they are on the verge of homelessness and
destitution, if action is taken against the property, without granting them any
hearing.
5. It is submitted that the appellants are the residents of property bearing
no. E-635 in Khasra No. 632, Jaitpur Block E, Jaitpur Extension-Part II
("subject property"). It is submitted that writ, being W.P.(C)No. 8641/2024,
has been filed against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD") to
prevent them from demolishing the subject property and evicting the
residents, without issuing individual Show Cause Notices to them, or
providing an opportunity to be heard.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants are the individual
house owners of the property, and collectively are the residents/owners of
the ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor of the
subject property. It is submitted that the appellants had purchased the
individual flats from respondent no. 6/the builder, during the period from
2021-2022. It is submitted that the appellants are bonafide purchasers, and
they were not aware that there was any dispute with respect to the property
in question.
7. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1/MCD has issued a vacation
notice qua the subject property vide 27th April, 2023 to the respondent no.
6/builder. However, no individual notices have been issued to the appellants
who are the subsequent purchasers of the subject property.
8. Per contra, Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent/MCD, on advance notice, vehemently opposes
the present appeal. He submits that the appellants, being the subsequent
purchasers, have no right of any hearing. He further relies upon the
judgment of this Court passed in the case of Dr. Mrs. R.A. Bhujwala & Ors.
Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. , reported as 1995 SCC OnLine
Del 694. He further submits that the respondent no. 6-builder has already
been heard and that even the learned Appellate Tribunal: MCD
("ATMCD"), has passed order against the respondent no. 6/builder. Thus, he
submits that there is no fresh cause of action in favour of the appellants.
9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that
vide order dated 14th June, 2024, notice has been issued in the writ petition
filed by the appellants. Reply is yet to be filed by the respondent/MCD, and
the issues as raised by the appellants, are yet to be adjudicated by the learned
Single Judge.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that status quo be maintained with respect
to construction in the property bearing no. E-635 in Khasra No. 632, Jaitpur
Block E, Jaitpur Extension-Part II, till the next date of hearing.
11. The respondent-MCD is directed to file reply in the writ petition of
the appellants in terms of the order dated 14th June, 2024.
12. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3/BSES
Rajdhani Power Limited, submits that a letter has already been received by it
from respondent no. 1-MCD, for disconnection of electricity in the subject
property.
13. Accordingly, it is directed that respondent no. 3 shall not take any
precipitative action against the subject property, till the next date of hearing
in the writ petition of the appellants, pending filing of reply by the MCD.
14. It is made clear that the interim relief granted in favour of the
appellants is only till the next date of hearing before the learned Single
Judge. Learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition of the appellants
herein, shall be at liberty to take appropriate decision as regards any interim
relief in favour of the appellants, who are the petitioners before the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 8641/2024.
15. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal is disposed of, along
with the pending application.
MINI PUSHKARNA
(VACATION JUDGE)
DHARMESH SHARMA
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 24, 2024
c
