IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Siyaram Shakya – Appellant
Versus
Chaman Prakash Saxena & Ors. – Respondents
CM(M) 497 of 2023
Decided On : 27-03-2023
Exemption - Application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of annexures/documents - Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application seeking restraint on construction by respondent no.1 in the subject suit property, which was not immediately taken up by the Trial Court and was scheduled for a later date. The petitioner submitted photographs showing the construction and alleged illegal construction by respondent no.1. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) stated that the suit property is booked by them and proposed demolition action is sought to be carried out. MCD also issued a notice to the police authorities to intervene and ensure no further construction by respondent no.1.
Finding of the Court:
The Court restrained respondent no.1 from carrying out any further construction and directed MCD to ensure compliance. The matter was scheduled to be taken up by the Trial Court on the fixed date. The SHO of Police Station Dabri was directed to render assistance to MCD officials to prevent unauthorized construction. Respondent no.1 was given liberty to approach the Court for modification or variation in the order. The MCD and the concerned SHO were directed to serve a copy of the order upon respondent no.1.
Issues: Application seeking restraint on construction, alleged illegal construction, proposed demolition action by MCD, intervention by police authorities, and modification or variation in the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court has the authority to restrain further construction and direct authorities to prevent unauthorized construction. The petitioner's submission of photographs showing construction and alleged illegal construction influenced the Court's decision.
Final Decision: The petition and pending application were disposed of with the terms mentioned in the judgment.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
CM APPL. 14872/2023 (Exemption)
1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures/documents.
2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 497/2023 & CM APPL. 14871/2023 (Stay)
4. The petitioner has approached this Court vide the present petition to redress his grievance of having filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908 seeking restraint on the purported construction being carried out by respondent no.1 in the subject suit property, which was not taken up by the learned Trial Court immediately and has been posted to 10.04.2023.
5. Mr. Swastik Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court had merely noted the next date of hearing as 10.04.2023 on the application rather than give a short adjournment so as to enable the petitioner to address the Court on the alleged illegal construction being carried on by respondent no.1.
6. Learned counsel further submits that he has enclosed photographs showing the present construction as also the constructions alleged to have been carried out even now.
7. Mr. Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for R-2/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter as "MCD") submits that subject suit property is already booked by them and that the proposed action of demolition is also sought to be carried out.
8. Learned counsel further submits that an appropriate notice asking the police authorities to intervene and ensure that no further construction is made on the subject suit property has also been issued to the said police authorities.
9. Mr. Singh, learned counsel submits that the report generated thereon has already been filed before the learned Trial Court.
10. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel appearing for MCD, it is deemed appropriate that respondent no.1 be restrained from carrying out any further action of the purported construction being made by him.
11. The MCD shall ensure that the respondent no.1 desist from any such further construction as obtaining today.
12. In the meanwhile, the matter may be taken up by learned Trial Court on the date already fixed, i.e., 10.04.2023.
13. At request of Mr. Singh, learned counsel for MCD, the SHO of Police Station Dabri would render all assistance to the concerned officials of MCD to ensure that no construction, which is not within the permissible limits or in accordance with the sanctioned plan, if any, is permitted to be carried out.
14. Respondent no.1 is at liberty to approach this Court in case he seeks any modification or variation in the present order.
15. The MCD and the concerned SHO are directed to serve a copy of the present order upon respondent no.1
16. With the aforesaid terms, the petition and pending application are disposed of.
17. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for MCD under signatures of Court Master.
The urgency in the application due to illegal construction influenced the court's decision to direct the Trial Court to take up the application at the earliest and dispose of it expeditiously.
Municipal authorities are obligated to enforce statutory injunctions against unauthorized construction, and failure to do so can result in personal liability for responsible officials.
The court has the authority to restrain coercive action against a property pending appeal and regularisation application.
The court finds that contempt proceedings become redundant when the respondent authority formally undertakes to execute its statutory duty regarding unauthorized construction following the dismissal ....
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.