Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Poonam Gupta - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 4241 of 2021 & CM Appl. 12890 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2021
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Municipal Law
Act Referred
DELHI DEVELOPMENT ACT: S.29, S.30
DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT: S.332, S.343, S.344
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACT: S.247, S.248, S.252
Headnote
(B) Regularization of unauthorized constructions - The court established that a corporation has a duty to consider regularization applications based on legal compliance and nature of construction, and that no blanket prohibition can exist against its consideration. (Paras 8-10)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims unauthorized construction by others. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. consideration of regularization application. (Para 5) |
| 3. court finds no grounds for demolition. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed without direction. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent/SDMC to demolish construction on the third floor of House No. E-69, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 and further a direction to SDMC not to regularise the unauthorized construction on the third floor of the said property.
2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the first and second floor of the subject property.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that petitioner does not have any right to the third floor of the subject property.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the South Delhi Municipal Corporation submits that the unauthorized constructions were noticed in the year 2010, part demolition action was taken and property has been sealed. He submits that as of now, no construction activity is being carried out in the subject property.
5. He further submits that a representation was received from the respondent No.2 seeking his willingness to get the existing construction regularized for the purposes of de-sealing of the third floor. Said application is in under consideration and would be disposed of in accordance with law.
6. The relief sought by the petitioner in this petition is against the respondent/Corporation seeking demolition of the unauthorized construction and a restraint not to regularise the unauthorized construction on the third floor.
7. Since there is no construction activity, being carried out in the subject property as stated by learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation, which is also not disputed by the petitioner, no direction can be issued in the subject writ petition directing respondent corporation to carry out any demolition.
8. Insofar as the regularization application is concerned, as stated by learned counsel for respondent/Corporation and as is evident from the letter dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure P-1), said application is under consideration.
9. No restraint can be imposed upon the respondent corporation from considering an application seeking regularisation. Said application has to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.
10. As to whether the regularisation application is to be allowed or not, it would be dependent upon the nature of the construction as to whether it is compoundable or regularise able. There cannot be a blanket embargo upon the corporation from even considering the application. On receipt of an application, Corporation is bound to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
11. In view of the above, no direction can be issued in the subject writ petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
