IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Sheetal Jain - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2129 of 2021
Decided On : 25-02-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. non-compliance with prior tribunal order (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. demolition order quashed for procedural non-compliance (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. order for reconsideration and personal hearing (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.6222/2021 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2129/2021 & CM APPL.6221/2021 (stay)
1. Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, learned Additional Standing counsel GNCTD has filed, over e-mail of the Court Master, the notification dated 23.02.2021, issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, notifying the appointment of the Presiding Officer for the Appellate Tribunal, MCD. The same is taken on record.
2. Petitioner impugns the demolition order dated 12.01.2021.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that the regularisation application of the petitioner has already been dismissed by order dated 01.12.2010.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents were directed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD by its order dated 06.02.2012 to decide the application for regularization afresh.
5. Learned counsel submits that admittedly Corporation has not passed any fresh order on the regularization application as directed by the Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 06.02.2012.
6. Apart from directing the respondents to decide the regularisation application afresh and not to demolish the property of the petitioner till then, order dated 06.02.2012 directs that petitioner shall demolish all non-compoundable/unauthorized construction in her flat, if any, as pointed out by the respondent and shall deposit the compounding charges as applicable in respect of the entire building.
7. It is not the case of the respondent that after the order dated 06.02.2012, the non-compoundable/unauthorized construction in her flat has been pointed to the petitioner.
8. Since the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 06.02.2012 has not been complied with by the respondent corporation and a decision on the regularization application has not been taken afresh, the Corporation could not have passed the subject demolition order dated 12.01.2021.
9. This demolition order dated 12.01.2021 is accordingly quashed. Respondent/Corporation is now once again directed to comply with the direction of the Tribunal dated 06.02.2012 to re-consider the regularization application of the appellant.
10. Respondent shall first indicate to the petitioner the non-compoundable deviation/unauthorized construction in the flat as directed by Tribunal by its order dated 06.02.2012 and also communicate the compounding charges as applicable and thereafter on petitioner complying with the condition imposed by order dated 06.02.2012 of removing the non-compoundable deviations and payment of the regularization charges, the application of the petitioner for regularisation shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.
11. It is directed that at the time of consideration of the application personal hearing shall also be granted to the petitioner.
12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
13. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
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 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.
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'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 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 property owner can seek de-sealing and regularization for unauthorized constructions, provided rectifications comply with building bye-laws, per the court's directive.
A petition is not maintainable when the subject matter is appealable and the related applications have already been dismissed.
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....
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.