( 1 ) WRIT petition and the CM (Main) above have been filed by S. Balbir Inder singh. In the writ petition, order dated 18. 12. 2003 passed by the Appellate tribunal MCD in Appeal No. 3/atmcd/2003 has been challenged. It is prayed that said order be sent aside and as a consequence demolition order dated 30. 12. 2002 passed by MCD be quashed.

( 2 ) IN the CM (Main) it is prayed that order dated 19. 4. 2004 passed by shri A. KPathak A. D. J. Delhi in MCA No. 49/2004 be quashed and as a consequence order dated 28. 2. 2004 passed by Sh. Amit Bansal, Civil Judge delhi in Suit No. 322/2003 be set aside and petitioners application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC be allowed. MCD be restrained from demolishing petitioners house No. 1513, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi till disposal of the suit filed by the petitioner.

( 3 ) CASE pleaded by the petitioner is that by and under a registered sale deed dated 29. 10. 1952, his father, late S. Dalip Singh purchased 500 sq. yards of land which came to be given Municipal number 1513, Wazir Nagar, kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. His father constructed a house on the plot. By way of an internal arrangement between petitioner and his step mother, smt. Ranjeet Kaur Guman, portion of house measuring 135 sq. yards came under possession of the petitioner and remaining 365 sq. yards came under possession of his mother.

( 4 ) FOR record, I may note that sale deed dated 29. 10. 1952 shows that late S. Dalip Singh, father of petitioner, purchased 490 sq. yards of land and not 500 sq. yards of land.

( 5 ) IT is stated by the petitioner that on 24. 6. 1996, a demolition order under Section 343 DMC Act 1957 was passed against petitioners property. It was passed without serving any show cause notice on the petitioner. Part of the property was demolished in July and September 1996. Petitioner challenged the demolition order by and under Appeal No. 247/at mcd/2001. Vide order dated 21. 3. 2002, appeal was allowed. It was directed that demolition order dated 24. 6. 1996 be treated as a notice. Petitioner was given an opportunity to represent. MCD was directed to pass fresh orders.

( 6 ) PETITIONER states that on 10. 6. 2002 and 16. 8. 2002 he submitted representations against the demolition order (which was to be treated as a notice ). Some proceedings were conducted by Sh. Mishra, Assistant Engineer (Bldg, ). No hearing was conducted by Sh. Dinesh Kumar. On 30. 12. 2002 sh. Dinesh Kumar passed a demolition order.

( 7 ) AS noted above, challenge to the demolition order before the appellate tribunal failed.

( 8 ) A two fold grievance has been laid by the petitioner. Firstly, it is contended that Sh. Dinesh Kumar (A. E.) had not heard the petitioner. Hearing was concluded by Sh. Mishra (A. E.) and therefore impugned demolition order had to be quashed. Secondly, on merits it is contended that step mother of the petitioner has effected certain constructions which were also a subject matter of proceedings before the Municipal Authorities pertaining to unauthorised construction. There is no demarcation between the portion of the property which has fallen to share of his step mother and petitioner s share. It cannot therefore be ascertained as to which part of the property is unauthorised.

( 9 ) RESPONSE of the MCD to the writ petition is as under:-

"6. It is submitted that the property in question i. e. , 1513, Wazir nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi was allegedly purchased by the father of the petitioner by way of a Registered Sale Deed. Without admitting the ownership of the petitioner or his father in respect of the said property, it is submitted that admittedly, the property in question was being assessed in the name of petitioner s mother, Smt. Ranjeet kaur Guman. Smt. Ranjeet Kaur Guman raised unauthorized construction on the said property in the year 1991 and 1992. It is submitted that for the first time unauthorized construction of a hall and basement, ground floor and first floor