Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Jogender Kumar - Appellant
Versus
East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 4801 of 2021; CM Appl. No. 14826 of 2021
Decided On : 05-07-2021
Demolition - Illegal Construction - The court disposed of the petition seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation to demolish alleged illegal construction, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and without opining on the objection regarding the petitioner's locus to file the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to the Municipal Corporation to demolish alleged illegal construction by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 claimed selective action due to being a witness in a case against the petitioner and had already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition, stating that no further orders were necessary in view of the respondent's submissions. The court also left the issue of the petitioner's locus to file the petition open.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged illegal construction, selective action, and the petitioner's locus to file the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the respondent's submissions regarding the pending appeal and the assurance that further action would be taken in accordance with the law and subject to orders by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, and the issue of the petitioner's locus to file the petition was left open.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent, Municipal Corporation to demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction being raised by respondent No.2 in property number D-311, Gali No.14, New Ashok Nagar, East Delhi.
3. The petitioner is a resident of property number D-303, Gali No.14, New Ashok Nagar, East Delhi.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on advance notice, submits that selective action is sought to be taken against the property of the respondent as respondent is a witness to a Kalandara, which has been registered against the petitioner under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. He further submits that a demolition notice was issued in the name of the son of respondent No.2 with whom respondent No.2 has strained relations. Further, respondent No.2 has already filed an appeal which is pending before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Corporation submits that part demolition action was taken on 27.12.2019 and a further demolition notice has been issued on 19.04.2021. He, however, concedes that respondent No.2 has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
7. Learned counsel submits that that further action shall be taken by the respondent, Corporation in accordance with law and subject to orders to be passed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
8. In view of the above statement of learned counsel for respondents, no further orders are called for in the writ petition. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
9. However, this is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and without opining on the objection taken by respondent No.2 with regard to the locus of the petitioner to file the petition. Said issue is left open.
10. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
The court's decision was based on the respondent's assurance of further action in accordance with the law and the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
The court emphasized that unauthorized construction enforcement must respect legal processes and pending appeals, leaving petitioner's standing open for further consideration.
Municipal authorities possess the jurisdiction to enforce laws against unauthorized construction, which must be acted upon as per legal provisions, while respecting the appeals process.
The need for the Corporation to take action in accordance with law and the rights of owners/occupiers to defend proceedings before the appellate Tribunal, MCD.
Municipal authorities must operate within legal frameworks when enforcing demolition orders, respecting property owners' rights to appeal.
The court's decision was influenced by the need to provide the respondents with an opportunity to approach the appellate Tribunal-MCD and seek remedy in accordance with the law.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of allowing the respondents to avail of their remedy before the Appellate Tribunal-MCD in cases of unauthorized construction and demolition actions.
The court reiterated that unauthorized constructions can be demolished if they do not comply with building bye-laws, while allowing a deferral for an appeal process before the Appellate Tribunal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
