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.
Puneet Ghosh - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6040 of 2021
Decided On : 06-07-2021




A property owner can seek de-sealing and regularization for unauthorized constructions, provided rectifications comply with building bye-laws, per the court's directive.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Directions for de-sealing property - Petitioner sought de-sealing of property for rectification after unauthorized construction led to sealing. Respondent did not object to rectification and application for regularization post-repair. Maintenance of building bye-laws emphasized. (Paras 2-11)

(B) Procedure for rectification and regularization - Respondent directed to de-seal premises; petitioner must rectify and apply for regularization within specified timeframe; failure leads to re-sealing. (Paras 9-11)

Facts of the case:
The petition concerns unauthorized construction by the petitioner, leading to sealing and dismissal of appeals against the closure. The petitioner seeks to rectify and apply for regularization subsequent to sealing.

Findings of Court:
Respondent directed to de-seal the premises to allow rectification, with an emphasis on adherence to bye-laws.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner could rectify the property and seek regularization after prior appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Court held that the petitioner is entitled to rectify the property and seek regularization, provided they comply with building regulations.

Result: Petition allowed.

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.

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