IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Aviral Bhatla - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P(C) 2323 of 2021 & CM Appls. 6770-71 of 2021
Decided On : 23-02-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges vacation notices and demolition order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant argues based on previously filed appeal and lockdown impacts. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court grants temporary protection during appeal process. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court concludes with order for appeal and notification. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns vacation notices dated 11.02.2020, 01.02.2021 and demolition order dated 04.12.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action seems to have been taken based on some building plan dated 03.12.2010. He submits that the property has been constructed as per sanctioned plan dated 17.05.2000.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal MCD which was listed on 11.03.2020 when notice was issued to the Corporation, returnable for 11.03.2020 and as none appeared for the Corporation on 11.03.2020 and the matter was adjourned to 24.03.2020 directing the Corporation to file a status report.
5. Learned counsel submits that thereafter on account of nationwide lockdown the appeal has not been taken up for hearing and today the Appellate Tribunal MCD is not functional.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the owner of the lower ground floor has already filed an appeal and there is a status quo order with regard to his property by the Appellate Tribunal MCD.
7. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation. Learned counsel submits that property was inspected and deviation contrary to sanction plan was found from basement upto the third floor.
8. In view of the fact that petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal MCD and the appeal has not been taken up for consideration for the reasons stated afore-stated, this petition is disposed of with a direction that for a period of two weeks after the commencement of the functioning of the Appellate Tribunal MCD or till the time the appeal/stay application of the petitioner is taken up for consideration by the Appellate Tribunal MCD, whichever is earlier, no action of demolition shall be taken against the subject property.
9. The continuation of protection thereafter shall be subject to orders to be passed by the Appellate Tribunal MCD. It is clarified that the Appellate Tribunal MCD would be free to decide the appeal/stay application without being influenced by anything stated here in.
10. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
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.
Interim protection is warranted to ensure fairness in proceedings when a demolition notice is contested and an appeal is pending.
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 stay on a demolition order can be granted pending appeal, emphasizing the need for functioning appellate mechanisms in administrative law.
The court has the discretion to grant temporary protection from demolition while imposing restrictions and making the continuation of protection subject to the orders of the relevant appellate author....
The court may grant interim protection against demolition orders pending appeals, with conditions on further construction activities to ensure adherence to existing regulations.
The court's decision was influenced by the operational status of the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and the need to ensure the continuation of interim protection for the petitioner.
The court upheld the interim protection against a demolition order, ensuring the Appellate Tribunal considers appeals without bias from the High Court's order.
The Court directed the corporation to act against unauthorized construction based on the outcome of an ongoing appeal, emphasizing that appellate bodies must operate independently.
Court emphasized the necessity of protecting petitioners from demolition pending the outcome of their pending appeal to ensure due process.
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.