IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Ankit Dabas - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 1398 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3983 of 2021
Decided On : 23-02-2022
Unauthorized Construction - Property Dispute - The court held that the principle of negative equality does not apply, and one who raises unauthorized construction cannot resist action solely on the ground of inaction of the Corporation regarding other illegal constructions in the society.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner seeks direction for action against unauthorized construction in a housing society. Corporation filed a status report stating unauthorized construction has been booked and a demolition order passed, but could not take place due to non-availability of police force.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition, binding the Corporation to take appropriate action in accordance with law. It also directed the Corporation to consider any regularization application by the society expeditiously and issued a direction to the concerned police officers to provide appropriate police force if requested by the Corporation.
Issues: Maintainability of the petition, principle of negative equality, regularization application by the society, non-availability of police force.
Ratio Decidendi: 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.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed of, binding the Corporation to take appropriate action in accordance with law and directing consideration of any regularization application by the society expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent/Corporation to take action against the illegal unauthorized construction carried out by respondent No.4 in Flat No.4a, Sandeep Cooperative Group Housing Society, Plot No.35, Rohini, Sector-13, Delhi.
3. Status report has been filed by the Corporation stating that the unauthorized construction has been booked and a demolition order has been passed. However, demolition could not take place as there was non-availability of police force.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that not only respondent No.4, but several other flat owners have also made similar additions/alterations in their flats.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 objects to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner has adopted a 'pick and choose policy'.
6. This is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the property of the petitioner is right adjoining the property of respondent No.4 and petitioner is directly affected by the illegal construction raised.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that since others have also made similar additions, action cannot be taken against his property alone.
8. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.4 on the principle of negative equality. One who allegedly raises unauthorized construction cannot resist the action proposed by the Municipal Corporation solely on the ground of inaction of the Corporation qua other illegal and unauthorized constructions in the society.
9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/society submits that since several of the occupants of the society have made similar construction, an application for regularization has been filed by the Corporation and the same is pending.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that he has no instructions with regard to pendency of any such application.
11. Be that as it may, since the status report of the Corporation states that the construction is unauthorized and illegal, demolition order has been passed and action in accordance with law is being taken, this petition is disposed of, binding the Corporation down to the statement made in the status report that appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken.
12. However, it is clarified that that in case any regularization application has been filed by the society, the same be considered by the Corporation expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks and subject to the outcome of the regularization application, further action be taken in accordance with law.
13. Further, direction is issued to respondent No.2, the concerned police officers to provide appropriate police force, if so requested by the Corporation in accordance with law.
14. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
15. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through e-mail by the Court Master.
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.
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.
Civil Law - unauthorized construction of road - Since alleged illegal unauthorized construction in subject property has already been regularized, no further orders are called for in this petition.
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 can be regularized upon payment of a compounding fee, negating the necessity for further court action.
The court underscored the requirement for lawful procedures regarding unauthorized constructions, affirming the rights of property occupants to defend against actions taken.
A petition under Article 226 is not maintainable unless the petitioner demonstrates locus standi and establishes a connection to the property in question.
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.
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.