Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
J.R. MIDHA, J.
AMBEY RANI DEVELOPER PVT. LTD. – Petitioner
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3794 of 2017 and C.M. Appl. 16684 of 2017
Decided On : 03-05-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Standing Counsel
The importance of approaching the court with clean hands and providing evidence to support ownership claims.
Headnote:
Demolition - Ownership Dispute - Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, Section 123 - The court dismissed the petitioner's request for stay of demolition and mandamus, finding that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands and concealed relevant facts. The court noted that the plot in question had been demolished by the municipal corporation and was maintained as a public park, and that the petitioner's claim of ownership was not supported by the evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought stay of demolition and mandamus to prevent interference in construction on a plot claimed to be owned by the petitioner. The respondent claimed that the plot had been demolished and maintained as a public park, and that the petitioner concealed relevant facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands and concealed relevant facts, and that the plot had been demolished and maintained as a public park.
Issues: Ownership dispute, concealment of facts, demolition action, possession of the plot.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to approach the court with clean hands and the lack of evidence supporting the ownership claim led to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
1. The petitioner is seeking stay of the demolition action and dispossession from plot bearing No.C-123A, measuring 110 square yards, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, Delhi. The petitioner is also seeking mandamus to the respondent not to interfere in the construction on the aforesaid plot. The averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition are as under:-
(i) The petitioner is the owner of plot bearing No.C-123A, Hari Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi having purchased the same vide sale deed dated 06th September, 2016 from Neeraj Bhardwaj, grand son of Nathu Singh. Nathu Singh had purchased the aforesaid plot from Diwan Sarup Lal vide sale deed dated 30th September, 1969 and the subject property changed hands before being purchased by the petitioner.
(ii) The subject property has been assessed to property tax since 1970.
(iii) The petitioner came to know that the respondent prepared a layout plan of the locality in the year 1990 without physical verification or calling the stakeholders. The layout plan has not been prepared according to the actual possession of the locality.
(iv) Plot No.C-123A is not situated on the government land/park and the officials of the respondent are blackmailing the petitioner though the petitioner is having registered sale deed as well as the actual physical possession.
(v) In a litigation initiated by one Ishwar Dayal Mathur, the respondent admitted that there was no triangular park adjoining plot No.C-123. In W.P.(C) 4642/1994 titled Indu Sobti v. MCD, the respondent never claimed the existence of any park over the property.
(vi) Vide complaint dated 28th September, 2016, the petitioner requested the respondent to remove illegal encroachment activity on the road as well as in front of the subject property. The petitioner thereafter applied for permission to cut a tree which was granted without any objection.
(vii) The petitioner applied for sanction of building plan which was allowed whereupon the petitioner paid requisite charges of Rs.1,74,430/- started construction over the subject plot.
(viii) The petitioner made a representation dated 06th April, 2017 to the respondent as well as to SHO, P.S. Hari Nagar for passing the directions to their subordinate(s) not to harass him.
(ix) The petitioner received a letter dated 12th April, 2017 from the respondent in which the respondent, for the first time, claimed that as per their layout plan, there was a municipal park.
(x) On 26th April, 2017, the officials of the respondent visited the subject plot and threatened to demolish the construction.
(xi) On 28th April, 2017, the petitioner’s Director visited the local police station and came to know that the demolition action has been planned for 03rd May, 2017.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent urged at the time of the hearing that there is no plot No.C-123A, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, as per the layout plan. As per the layout plan, there is a park at the location of the subject plot. On February, 2016, demolition action was taken by the respondent and no objection was raised by the person from who the petitioner claims to have purchased the subject plot. In that view of the matter, the person from whom the petitioner claims to have purchased the suit property could not have handed over the possession thereof to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the true and relevant facts from this Court in the writ petition. It is further submitted that no notice is required for demolition on a public land.
3. Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the layout plan produced by the respondent is not correct as it does not show the Ghanta Ghar. Learned senior counsel refers to the property tax documents relating to plot No.C-123A since 1975. Reliance is placed on the pleadings in a civil suit as well as the order passed in the writ petition in which the respondent has not taken a stand that there is a park at the relevant site. Learned se
