IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Pawan Kumar Saraswat - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 10933 of 2021
Decided On : 27-09-2021
Misrepresentation - Unauthorized Construction - The court dismissed the petition seeking action against unauthorized construction due to the petitioner's misrepresentations and ulterior motives.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction against the respondent-Corporation to take action against unauthorized illegal construction of commercial nature, deviation, and encroachment of property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner made misrepresentations and concealments in the petition, failed to disclose pending litigation, and did not approach the court with clean hands, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: Misrepresentations, Concealments, Ulterior Motives
Ratio Decidendi: A party that does not approach the court with clean hands and files a petition with ulterior motives should not be permitted to invoke the extraordinary Writ jurisdiction of the court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, but the Municipal Corporation was permitted to take action in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent-Corporation to take action against unauthorized illegal construction of commercial nature, deviation and encroachment of property bearing municipal No. 2858 from Gali Ghasi Ram and property bearing municipal No. 2877 from Gali Jajam Puria, Hauz Qazi, Delhi and further seeks cancellation of sanction plan obtained by Mohd. Kasif son of Mohd. Akil etc.
3. As per the petitioner illegal unauthorized construction activity is being raised in the subject property contrary to the sanctioned building plan and there is a deviation and encroachment.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, on advance notice, submits that petitioner has made several concealments and misrepresentations. He submits that petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance based on forged and fabricated document against respondent no. 3 and there was no interim order granted. He submits that the subject property was sold to Mohd. Kasif and Mohd. Hashim.
5. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner had even entered into a Memo of Understanding with the subsequent purchasers to give up his alleged rights for a sum of Rs. 1 crore 98 lakhs out of which Rs. 1 crore 68 lakhs have been already received by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel submits that without disclosing all this, petitioner filed an application before the trial court seeking a restraint on raising construction but thereafter did not press the application before trial court in the said Suit and the application now stands adjourned to 01.11.2021.
7. Learned counsel submits that clearly the petition is motivated and petitioner has filed this petition with ulterior motive and for the purpose of extorting money. He further submits that despite the fact that petitioner is aware of the owners of the property he has purposely not impleaded them in these proceedings.
8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has over e-mail of the Court Master shared certain documents. The same are taken on record.
9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation, on advance notice, submits that the property was inspected and has been booked and appropriate action in accordance with law is being taken.
10. No doubt the Corporation is entitled to take action in case any breach or violation is brought to its notice, however, what is relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case is as to whether the petitioner who approaches this Court by making misrepresentations and concealments should be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. Perusal of the petition clearly shows that there is no disclosure made by the petitioner about the pending litigation. Petitioner has also not impleaded the owners i.e. Mohd Kasif and Mohd Hashim as respondents in this petition despite the fact that he has mentioned their names in the prayer paragraph.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner in one of the documents annexed to the petition i.e. a complaint to the Police Commissioner has mentioned about the Suit and the details of the owners.
13. The fact that petitioner has specifically mentioned about the names of the owners and the civil litigation in the Police Complaint but has completely kept silent about the same in the petition filed before this court, goes on to show that petitioner has purposely made misrepresentations and concealments in the petition. When petitioner mentioned the details to the Commissioner of Police in a complaint made to him, what precluded him from disclosing the same in the petition?
14. The answer to the above question is clearly obvious. The intention of the petition was to obtain orders from the Court, which petitioner has not been able to obtain in the civil proceedings.
15. Though unauthorized illegal construction, which is becoming rampant, cannot be countenanced however,
A party approaching the court must do so with clean hands and without ulterior motives.
A petition under Article 226 is not maintainable unless the petitioner demonstrates locus standi and establishes a connection to the property in question.
The principle of negative equality does not apply, and action can be taken against unauthorized construction regardless of inaction by the Corporation on other illegal constructions in the society.
Unconditional apology with a cost and subjecting further construction activity to the orders of the appellate Tribunal-MCD.
Unauthorized construction cannot be defended based on inaction against other similar violations; each case must be treated according to its own merits.
Unauthorized construction claims must be substantiated with verified facts; existence of a sanctioned plan negates the basis for legal intervention.
A petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India lies only for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right, and lack of locus standi and failure to demonstrate infringement of fundamental or....
Unauthorized construction without proper permits is subject to court orders and potential contempt charges if violations occur.
Lack of evidence, ground work, and public interest element in a public interest litigation may lead to the dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs on the petitioner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.