Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation – Respondent
| 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 fi
Unauthorized construction claims must be substantiated with verified facts; existence of a sanctioned plan negates the basis for legal intervention.
Unconditional apology with a cost and subjecting further construction activity to the orders of the appellate Tribunal-MCD.
Unauthorized construction without proper permits is subject to court orders and potential contempt charges if violations occur.
Unauthorized construction cannot be defended based on inaction against other similar violations; each case must be treated according to its own merits.
A petition under Article 226 is not maintainable unless the petitioner demonstrates locus standi and establishes a connection to the property in question.
The principle of negative equality does not apply, and action can be taken against unauthorized construction regardless of inaction by the Corporation on other illegal constructions in the society.
A petitioner must demonstrate a direct interest or connection to the subject property to have standing in legal proceedings, which was not established in this case.
Construction activities must adhere to sanctioned building plans to ensure structural integrity and prevent unauthorized modifications affecting neighboring properties.
Unauthorized construction can be regularized upon payment of a compounding fee, negating the necessity for further court action.
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
