IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Ramesh Chandra - Appellant
Versus
East Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 100 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 237-238 of 2022
Decided On : 04-01-2022
Revocation Order - Building Plan Sanction - The court permitted the petitioner to apply for regularization of the building plan within 15 days, and no coercive action shall be taken against the property until the application is disposed of.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of a revocation order for the building plan of the second and third floor of a property, claiming ownership of the roof rights through a registered sale deed executed by his father.
Finding of the Court:
The court permitted the petitioner to apply for regularization of the building plan within 15 days, and no coercive action shall be taken against the property until the application is disposed of.
Issues: Quashing of revocation order, ownership of roof rights, application for regularization of construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the petitioner to seek regularization of the building plan and restrained coercive action until the application is disposed of.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to move an application for regularization of the building plan within a period of 15 days.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks quashing of revocation order dated 15.12.2021, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of sanction of building plan for construction of second and third floor of property number 59, Sukh Vihar, Delhi has been revoked. Petitioner further seeks a restraint on the respondent from carrying out demolition proceedings qua the property.
3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had become owner of the roof rights above the first floor by way of a registered sale deed dated 20.02.2001, which was executed by his father in his favour.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had accordingly applied for sanction of a building plan for raising construction of the second and third floor.
5. Learned counsel submits that once the plan was sanctioned, construction was raised over the second and third floor. However, subsequently, a complaint was allegedly filed by someone claiming that the signatures of the father of the petitioner on the application for sanction of the building plan were forged.
6. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had not forged any signatures. However, he submits that as per the extant policy of the Corporation, floor-wise sanction is permissible.
7. Learned counsel submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, petitioner is willing to apply for regularization of the construction already made as has been permitted by the revocation order dated 15.12.2021.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that in case a regularization application is filed expeditiously, the same shall be disposed of in a time-bound manner.
9. accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall file an application seeking regularization of the second and third floor within a period of 15 days from today.
10. The petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move an application for regularization of the building plan within a period of 15 days. On such an application being filed and being in order, respondent shall disposed of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application.
11. Subject to the application being filed by the Petitioner within fifteen days, till the time application is disposed of, no coercive action shall be taken against the property of the petitioner. Coercive action, if any, thereafter shall be subject to orders to be passed by the Corporation on the regularization application.
12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
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 court's decision emphasized the opportunity for the petitioner to seek regularization of the building plan and the restraint on coercive action until the application is disposed of.
Court permits applicant to regularize construction based on corporate policy, emphasizing timely disposal of applications and the presumption of legitimacy in ownership claims.
The court mandated acceptance and processing of regularization applications for rectified unauthorized constructions and prohibited coercive actions during review, reinforcing legal compliance in mun....
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....
The court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in revocation decisions and clarified interim protection applicable until the Appellate Tribunal resumes functions.
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 judgment emphasizes the importance of following the procedure mandated under the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and highlights the limitations of the Commissioner's power to regularize viol....
A timely decision on regularization applications is essential to safeguard properties from premature 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.