Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Poonam Gupta & Anr – Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent/SDMC to demolish construction on the third floor of House No. E-69, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 and further a direction to SDMC not to regularise the unauthorized construction on the third floor of the said property.
2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the first and second floor of the subject property.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that petitioner does not have any right to the third floor of the subject property.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the South Delhi Municipal Corporation submits that the unauthorized constructions were noticed in the year 2010, part demolition action was taken and property has been sealed. He submits that as of now, no construction activity is being carried out in the subject property.
5. He further submits that a representation was received from the respondent No.2 seeking his willingness to get the existing construction regularized for the purposes of de-sealing of the third floor. Said application is in under consideration and would be disposed of in accordance with law.
6. The relief sought by the petitioner in this petition is against the r
The court emphasized that no direction for demolition could be issued in the absence of ongoing construction activity and that the regularization application had to be considered and disposed of in a....
Unauthorized construction cannot be ordered for demolition when there is no current activity, and the municipality must consider regularization applications as per legal standards.
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'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 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.
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.
Direction for lawful action regarding unauthorized construction depends on the outcomes of pending appeal and regularization applications, ensuring no prejudice to ongoing legal matters.
Unauthorized construction cannot be defended based on inaction against other similar violations; each case must be treated according to its own merits.
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.
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
