Unauthorized construction disputes involving alleged violations of building bye-laws and sanctioned plans, particularly when accompanied by animosity and long-standing litigation between the parties, are not suitable for resolution through writ petitions. The appropriate remedy lies in civil courts, where disputed questions of fact and law can be thoroughly examined.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is one of the co-owners with respect to property bearing No. 1 /1, Underhill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi measuring 2544. 80 sq. yards forming eastern portion of larger property measuring 7729. 97 sq. yards belonging to respondents 6 to 9. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the said land measuring 2544. 08 sq. yards along with his wife, elder brother and his wife. The petitioner states that after purchase the petitioner and other co-owners got building plans sanctioned and raised construction for residential use, in accordance with the building plans, after providing necessary set back in accordance with law. The property is stated to have been divided by boundary wall running through the entire length of the plot measuring about 283 ft. , raised with a view to segregate the portions purchased by the petitioner and other co-owners from rest of the portion of the larger plot.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner has been that respondents 6 to 10 in collusion with each other and in collusion with the officials of respondents 1 to 5 started raising extensive construction in their portions by constructing as many as 28 flats in subdivided plot known as I /3, Underhill Road, Delhi. Even though under the building bye-laws ground coverage is permissible to the extent of 33%, respondents 6 to 10 covered almost 70% of the ground area and raised constrution thereupon. Objection was raised by the petitioner at that time. Respondents 6 to 10 had assured that since there was an intervening plot bearing No. 1 /2, no unauthorized construction would be raised thereupon and the petitioner s right of privacy, easement and other rights would not be affected by raising constructions in the portion shown as red in the site plan bearing No. 1/2. Relying upon such assurance, it is alleged that the petitioner did not take further action against respondents in respect of the constructions raised on the plot, namely, 1/3, Underhill Road.

( 3 ) IT is further alleged that towards end of 1993 respondents 6 to 9 demolished old structure existing in the centre of the portion shown as blue or in other words 1/2, Underhill Road and started extensive construction. Again, the petitioner objected for the construction, which was being raised in an illegal and unlawful manner in total violation of the Building Bye-laws, 1993 and the Master Plan 2001. Again, an assurance was held out to the petitioner that building activity would be carried out only in accordance with the sanctioned plan, building bye-laws and Master Plan and all precautions would be taken to ensure that the petitioner and other co-owners could enjoy their portions without any disturbance and they would take care of easementary rights of petitioner and other family members. Despite such assurances, it is alleged, that the construction was raised in violation of the Building bye-laws and sanctioned plan.

( 4 ) IN nutshell the grievances made in the petition are that in collusion with respondents 1 to 5; respondents 6 to 10 have raised construction contrary to Building Bye-laws and sanctioned plan for which despite repeated complaints and representations no action has been taken by respondents 1 to 5. Consequently, direction is sought against respondents I and 6 to 10 to produce original sanctioned plan in respect of the construction being raised /raised at property bearing No. 1 / 2 and 1/3, Underhill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi; directing respondents to strictly adhere to the provisions of Building Bye-laws and Master Plan and not to permit respondents 6 to 10 to raise any construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and restrain them from raising further construction.

( 5 ) ON 17th July, 1995 while issuing show cause notice an interim order was passed that no construction in the premises I /2 and I /3, Underhill Road be carried out except in accordance with the sanctioned building plans. Again, a grievance was made by the petitioner that despite Court s order constru