Back
2002 Supreme(Del) 1708
High Court Of Delhi
GOPAL PARSAD SHASTRI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 2177 of 2001
Decided On : 11/13/2002
GITA LUTHRA, J.P.Sengh, S.K.TRIPATHI
The court established that the petitioner was entitled to an extension for construction up to August 2001 and should have been granted the extension of one year sought by the petitioners.
Headnote:
Construction Dispute - Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, Section 345 - The court discussed the issues related to the delay in construction due to the municipal water pipeline passing through the plot, the grant of extensions for construction, and the cancellation of the plot. The court found that the petitioner was entitled to an extension for construction up to August 2001 and should have been granted the extension of one year sought by the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a foundation, faced delays in construction due to disputes over a municipal water pipeline passing through the plot and unauthorized squatters preventing construction. The respondents sought to cancel the plot's allotment due to delayed construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to an extension for construction up to August 2001 and should have been granted the extension of one year sought by the petitioners.
Issues: Delay in construction, cancellation of plot allotment, grant of extension for construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner was entitled to an extension for construction up to August 2001 and should have been granted the extension of one year sought by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of mandamus quashing the order of 3. 10. 2000 and directed the respondents to calculate and intimate the charges for the extension of the construction period. The court also directed respondent No. 3 to re-validate the plans of the petitioner and mandated the petitioner to carry out construction within one year from the grant of such sanction.
( 1 )
( 2 ) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.
( 3 ) PETITIONER No. 2 - Foundation was allotted plot no. 8, Institutional area, Sector IV, R. K. Puram, New delhi on 23. 2. 1972 and an agreement to lease was executed on 10. 8. 1972. The plans for construction on the plot was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of delhi on 22. 3. 1979.
( 4 ) CERTAIN inter se disputes and problems arose between the parties as it was the contention of petitioner No. 2 that there was municipal water pipeline passing through the plot of the petitioner as a result of which it was not possible to construct on the property in question. Respondent No. 2 Landdd even issued show cause notice on 2. 8. 1985 for re-entry of the plot on account of delayed construction which was replied to by the petitioner on 9. 9. 1985 putting forth their stand on account of pipeline.
( 5 ) IT is stated in the writ petition that the municipal Corporation finally agreed to remove the water main pipeline and the plans were also re-validated. It is further stated that the clearance was given by the Urban Arts Comission on 4. 5. 1987 and the lease rights were restored after inspection of the plot in question on 28. 10. 1994. The amounts demanded by the MCD from time to time were also deposited as also certain amounts asked for by respondents 1 and 2. On 28. 6. 1999 the extension of time for construction was granted by respondents 1 and 2 upto April, 2000. It may also be noticed that on 16. 8. 1999 the plans were re-validated by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for a period of two years.
( 6 ) THE aforesaid facts thus make it clear that there was an issue involved of the MCO removing the water pipeline and other issues as a result of which extension was granted to the petitioner from time to time.
( 7 ) IT is further stated in the writ petition that on 19. 5. 2000 certain permission had to be obtained from the Tree Officer in view of the trees which had grown on the vacant plot. A reference has also been made to the fact that some unauthorised squatters outside the boundary wall of the plot in question were interested in preventing the petitioner from carrying on the construction and continued to make complaints and even filed a public interest litigation making allegations against the foundation that it was trying to grab the plot. On 9. 6. 2000 the petitioner made a request to respondents 1 and 2 for extension of time for completion of construction by a period of one year keeping in mind that the plans were re-validated by the mcd upto August 2001. The unauthorised kiosks, squatters outside the wall of the petitioner are stated to have been removed on 8. 11. 2000. It is stated that they continue to come back to the site.
( 8 ) THE present petition has been filed in view of the fact that respondents 1 and 2 refused to accede to the request of the petitioner for extension of time for construction and on 3. 10. 2000 sought to cancel the allotment in favour of the petitioner without even giving a show cause notice. The petitioners replied to this on 12. 10. 2000 and attempts were also made to physically take possession of the plot but the same was resisted by the petitioner. The sanction of the plans granted by the MCD were also withdrawn as a result of the re-entry of the plot in question.
( 9 ) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 3. 10. 2000 as also of the show cause notice dated 30. 3. 2001 issued by the MCD. The petitioner has further sought a writ seeking continuation of the lease rights of the petitioner in respect: of the plot in question and for grant of extension of time to complete the construction within a reasonable period of time.
( 10 ) THE counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 states that the petitioner has delayed construction over a long period of time which should have been completed within a period of two years from the date of handing over of the po
