Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Ashok Kumar Bajaj – Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for construction regularization (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. notice issued and application acknowledgement (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court orders timely disposal of application (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.470/2021(exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 163/2021
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to decide representation of the petitioner seeking regularization of the residential construction at the back portion of property bearing No. 12/16, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents/Corporation.
4. Learned counsel submits that the application has been received and in view of the lock down, same could not be disposed of. He states that endeavour shall be made to dispose of the application within six weeks from today.
5. The petition is disposed of directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within six weeks from today.
6. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
7. Copy of the order be uploaded on the Hi
Timely decision-making by public authorities on representations is essential, with courts emphasizing compliance with statutory obligations.
The court emphasized the necessity for a timely and reasoned decision on representations affecting property rights, ensuring the petitioners receive a personal hearing.
A timely decision on regularization applications is essential to safeguard properties from premature demolition actions.
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....
A property owner can seek de-sealing and regularization for unauthorized constructions, provided rectifications comply with building bye-laws, per the court's directive.
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 authority to restrain coercive action against a property pending appeal and regularisation application.
Administrative actions impacting individuals must adhere to principles of natural justice, particularly during pending appeals or applications for regularisation.
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 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.
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
