IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Puneet Ghosh - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6040 of 2021
Decided On : 06-07-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property context and unauthorized construction history (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's intent to rectify and regularize (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent's agreement to rectification (Para 8) |
| 4. court's directions for rectification and regularization process (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. final ruling and order issuance (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
CM APPLN. 19106-07/2021
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 6040/2021
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-Corporation to de-seal the property bearing Shop No. 38, Chowk, Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi for the purposes of rectification and to accept the application for regularization of the said property.
3. Property of the petitioner was booked in the year 2016-17 and demolition order was passed for raising unauthorized construction. On 10.01.2017 subject property was also sealed by the respondent on account of raising unauthorized construction.
4. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal-MCD which was dismissed by order dated 29.08.2017 thereafter the challenge of the petitioner by way of a further appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal-MCD was also rejected by the District Judge on 27.04.2018.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the appeal of the petitioner impugning the action of the respondent has already failed, petitioner now seeks to rectify the property and remove the deviations and thereafter approach the respondent-Corporation for regularization of the structure.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not seek to impugn the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal-MCD or the District Judge on merits.
7. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent under instructions submits that respondents have no objection in case petitioner were to rectify the building to the satisfaction of the officers of the respondent and bring it in conformity to the building bye-laws. He submits that after rectification is done, petitioner would be at liberty to apply for regularization which application would be considered in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, respondent is directed to de-seal the premises of the petitioner and the petitioner shall thereafter immediately commence the process of rectification and complete the process of rectification within a period of four weeks and thereafter, within one week, apply for regularization.
10. On receipt of the application, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass an order preferably within two weeks on receipt of the application.
11. It is clarified that in case the petitioner fails to rectify and file the regularization application within the period of four plus one week, respondent would be at liberty to once again seal the premises without recourse to this Court.
12. The petition is allowed in the above terms. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.
13. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
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 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 timely decision on regularization applications is essential to safeguard properties from premature demolition actions.
The court mandated acceptance and processing of regularization applications for rectified unauthorized constructions and prohibited coercive actions during review, reinforcing legal compliance in mun....
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.
Unauthorized construction cannot be ordered for demolition when there is no current activity, and the municipality must consider regularization applications as per legal standards.
Property identification must be accurate, and due process must be followed before undertaking demolition actions.
Balancing the interests of the petitioner and the actions taken by the respondents in cases of unauthorized construction.
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.
Subsequent purchasers have rights to challenge unlawful administrative actions, and temporary relief can be granted to allow further appeals.
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.