SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Satish Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5108 of 2021 & CM Appl. 15654 of 2021
Decided On : 03-05-2021




Unauthorized construction claims must be substantiated with verified facts; existence of a sanctioned plan negates the basis for legal intervention.

Headnote:(A) No specific laws or sections cited - Construction and Urban Planning principles discussed - The court addressed the legality of an allegedly unauthorized construction in New Delhi. The petitioner sought to stop the construction and requested demolition based on claims of illegality. The respondents contended that the construction complied with authorized plans. (Paras 2-5)

(B) Petition dismissal - The court emphasized the need for verification of factual claims before pursuit of legal action. It was noted that the presence of an approved construction plan negated the basis for the petition. The court maintained a stance against unfounded legal claims in light of verified authorizations. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a petition against the alleged unauthorized construction at a specific property, arguing for intervention from the corporation and police. The respondent corporation argued that proper plans were sanctioned and that illegalities were not present on-site during inspection.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the petition due to lack of verified facts and confirmed existence of sanctioned plans, imposing costs on the petitioner.

Issues: The key issues involved whether unauthorized construction was occurring, and the necessity of verified factual basis for pursuing legal claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that without substantiated claims of illegality in the presence of an authorized plan, legal proceedings are not warranted. The dismissal upheld the principle that claims made without verification may incur liabilities, such as costs.

Result: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim regarding unauthorized construction. (Para 2)
2. respondent's defense against petition's allegations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court dismisses petition due to factual inaccuracies. (Para 8)
4. final order and costs imposed on the petitioner. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent Corporation as well as the SHO, Police Station Hari Nagar to stop respondent No.4 from continuing with the illegal and unauthorised construction in property bearing No.WZ-VB-137, Gali No.6, Virender Nagar, New Delhi. Further direction is sought to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to demolish the unauthorised construction and respondent No.3 to provide assistance in demolition of the construction.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 - Corporation vehemently opposes the issuance of notice. He submits that the petition has been filed without verifying true facts and by making false allegations. He submits that construction plan has been sanctioned under the saral scheme.

4. It is submitted that in the present time of pandemic subject petition has been filed alleging illegal unauthorised construction and the officers of the respondent Corporation have had to verify the factual matrix of the matter.

5. He submits that since there is a sanctioned plan, no action can be taken against the subject property at this stage. It is only after completion of the construction, when completion certificate is applied that the Corporation officers are obliged to inspect the property and to verify the construction, unless illegal unauthorised construction is apparent on the face of it.

6. Learned counsel submits that on inspection of the property there was no illegal unauthorised construction apparent on the face of it. He submits that action in accordance with law would be taken at the appropriate stage, if required.

7. The statement is taken on record.

8. In view of the fact that subject petition has been filed without verification of correct facts and by alleging that there is no sanction plan, when there is one, I deem it expedient to dismiss the petition by imposing cost of Rs.5000/- on the petitioner.

9. The petition is accordingly dismissed, with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

10. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top