Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Arvind Chopra – Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner contests revocation of property plan. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding misrepresentation and subdivision. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's assessment of demolition threat. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. conclusion and orders regarding appeal process. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.6610/2021(exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2088/2021 & CM APPL.6121/2021(stay)
2. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
3. Petitioner impugns order dated 04.02.2021 passed by respondent/Corporation revoking the regularization plan approved on 10.04.2007 in respect of Property No.35-B/77, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the main ground for rejection of the plan is that petitioner has sub-divided the plot and raised construction on the sub-divided plot and concealed the said fact at the time of seeking approval.
5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that sub-division of plot was recognised and even permitted by the respondent in the year 1983 and thereafter the sub-divided plot was mutated in the name of the petitioner. Th
The court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in revocation decisions and clarified interim protection applicable until the Appellate Tribunal resumes functions.
The court has the discretion to grant interim protection during the pendency of an appeal, balancing the rights of the petitioner with the need to prevent unauthorized construction.
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.
The court upheld the principle of due process, granting a temporary stay on demolition orders pending resolution of the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
The court grants temporary protection against demolition for a property pending the resolution of a pending appeal regarding unauthorized construction, emphasizing the right to a fair hearing.
A demolition order is invalid if the municipal corporation fails to comply with the Appellate Tribunal's direction to reconsider a regularization application and identify unauthorized constructions.
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
