IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION. W.P.(C) 1972/2011 and CMs 4189/2011, 4729/2011, 12216/2011

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION W.P.(C) 1972/2011 and CMs 4189/2011, 4729/2011, 12216/2011 Decided on: IN THE MATTER OF SURESH GUPTA Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate versus MCD AND ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, ASC for R-1/MCD with Mr. J.S. Yadav, AE. Mr. Sumit Chander, Advocate for R-2 & R-3. Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg and Mr. Fazal Ahmed, Advocates for R-4 and R-5 with R-4 in person. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate for R-7. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to ensure that the unauthorized construction being raised by respondents No.4 W.P.(C) 1972/2011 Page 1 of 7

2 and 5 over plot No.A-616, Shastri Nagar, Delhi is demolished, with a further relief that respondents No.4 and 5 be allowed to raise any construction on the aforesaid plot only after obtaining a sanctioned building plan from respondent No.1/MCD. 2. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated On the very same day, counsel appearing for respondent No.1/MCD on advance copy stated that upon receiving the complaint from the petitioner, the property in question had been inspected and was booked for unauthorized construction. Respondent No.1/MCD was directed to file an affidavit to report the action taken in respect of the unauthorized construction. Respondent No.3/SHO of the area was also directed to ensure that no construction takes place on the property without a sanctioned building plan. 3. On , respondents No.4 and 5 filed an interim application, registered as CM 4729/2011, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had lodged a complaint in respect of the unauthorized construction being carried out by the applicants in the subject premises bearing No.A-616, Shastri Nagar, Delhi W.P.(C) 1972/2011 Page 2 of 7

3 but he was permitting construction in another portion of the same property by the owner thereof, namely, Smt.Chanchal Goel and Sh. Vijender Jain, who, it was stated are related to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner denied the aforesaid submission and stated that he had no objection for the directions to be issued to respondent No.1/MCD to remove the unauthorized construction in any other portion of the subject premises as well. 4. It is pertinent to note that an amended memo of parties was also filed alongwith the aforesaid application filed by respondents No.4 & 5 seeking impleadment of the aforesaid two persons as co-respondents. While the petitioner is oblivious of the aforesaid amended memo of parties filed alongwith the aforesaid application, counsel for the applicants submits that he did not sign the aforesaid application, which was filed by respondent No.4, Sh.Brijesh Gupta, who is himself an advocate. Respondent No.4 is present in Court and tenders an apology for the aforesaid improprietly and assures the Court that he shall be more careful in future. W.P.(C) 1972/2011 Page 3 of 7

4 5. In the status report filed by respondent No.1/MCD on , it is averred that the subject premises was inspected and unauthorized construction in the shape of a hall on the ground floor and raising of wall and columns on the ground floor and first floor were noticed in property No.A-616, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. The said unauthorized construction was booked on and after following due process of law, demolition orders were passed. Thereafter, demolition action was taken and the building was made inhabitable. 6. As regards the unauthorized construction existing in the adjacent property No.A-616/1, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, it is averred in the affidavit that there existed a room, kitchen, toilet on the ground floor to third floor, which was booked on and that a demolition order has already been passed in respect thereto. Thereafter, sealing proceedings were initiated by respondent No.1/MCD and sealing orders passed on and the property was sealed on the same day. However, it is conceded that demolition action in respect of the unauthorized construction in the aforesaid portion of the W.P.(C) 1972/2011 Page 4 of 7

5 subject premises has not taken place till date. The Court is assured that necessary steps shall be taken for demolishing the said unauthorized construction in a time bound manner. 7. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate, states that he has been engaged by respondent No.7, Smt. Chanchal Goyal, co-owner of the adjacent property and has been instructed to state that only yesterday, an appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid demolition order before respondent No.1/MCD. 8. Having regard to the submission made by the counsel for respondent No.1/MCD, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition with the following directions:- (i) Respondent No.1/MCD shall consider the application of respondent No.7/Smt. Chanchal Goyal for regularization as per law and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period four weeks from today. (ii) In case the decision taken is adverse to the applicants, the same shall be communicated to them and appropriate action for removal of the unauthorized construction shall W.P.(C) 1972/2011 Page 5 of 7

6 be taken after expiry of two weeks from the date of passing of such an order. (iii) Respondents No.4 and 5 shall ensure that no further construction is carried out on the subject premises without obtaining a sanctioned building plan from respondent No.1/MCD. (iv) Respondent No.1/MCD and respondent No.3/SHO of the area shall ensure that none of the parties carry out any construction on the subject premises without obtaining sanctioned building plans from respondent No.1/MCD. (v) Respondents No.4 and 5 shall raze to the ground the remaining unauthorized construction existing in their portion of the premises within two weeks. If the same is not removed within the stipulated time, respondent No.1/MCD shall take necessary steps for removal thereof in accordance with law while recovering the expenses for the said action from respondents No.4 and The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending W.P.(C) 1972/2011 Page 6 of 7

7 applications. DASTI to the counsel for respondent No.1/MCD. Sd./- JANUARY 17, 2012 (HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE W.P.(C) 1972/2011 Page 7 of 7