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
Asha Menon, J.
Davindra Mahey - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
CM (M) 409 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2021




Civil suits challenging demolition orders for unauthorized construction are not maintainable where specific provisions of the DMC Act provide for an appellate forum, reinforcing the jurisdictional limits of civil courts.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 330A, 343, 344 - Jurisdiction of Commissioner regarding unauthorized construction - The petitioner challenged the demolition order alleging jurisdictional error by the Commissioner; the courts found no prima facie case for injunction against demolition. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 10, 16)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The courts below exercised their discretion rightly in denying interim relief considering that no jurisdictional error was shown regarding the actions taken against unauthorized construction. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a flat owner, faced demolition proceedings initiated by the SDMC based on allegations of unauthorized construction made by a neighbor. The petitioner claimed violations of natural justice and jurisdictional issues regarding the authority of the Commissioner. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the previous judgments, stating there was no error in the impugned orders and that the petitioner should approach the appropriate appellate forum as the civil courts lacked jurisdiction over such matters. (Paras 21, 22)

Issues: The main issues involved the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in issuing demolition orders and adherence to principles of natural justice in the proceedings. (Paras 4, 6, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that unauthorized construction litigation must be directed to the Municipal Corporation's appellate tribunal; civil suits are not maintainable. The lack of jurisdictional errors meant the courts below correctly declined to grant an injunction. (Paras 17, 19, 20)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioner's legal arguments against the demolition order. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. respondent's counterarguments and legal standing. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court's analysis and observations on jurisdiction. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. final decision and dismissal of the petition. (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM (M) 409/2021 and CM APPLs. 19086/2021 (by the petitioner u/S 151 CPC for stay), 19087/2021 (by the petitioner u/S 151 CPC for exemption from filing complete Trial Court record)

1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside and quashing the order dated 8th January, 2021 passed by the learned ACJ in Suit No. CS SCJ 33/2021 and order dated 24th March, 2021 passed by the learned ADJ-02 in MCA DJ No.04/2021. The petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and the appellant before the learned ADJ.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition briefly stated are, that the petitioner is the owner in possession of Flat No.2206 in Pocket 2, Sector C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, which was purchased by his father. The property has since been converted into a free hold flat which was originally built by the Delhi Development Authority ("DDA", for short). The petitioner claims that he was carrying out some internal and external repairs of this flat when, out of sheer jealously and with ulterior motives, in order to harass and intimidate the petitioner, his neighbour Shri Dasrath Singh Tanwar filed a false and frivolous complaint with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging unauthorised construction was being carried out by the petitioner in the suit property. The said Shri Dasrath Singh Tanwar has also filed a Civil Suit No.1366/2019 presently pending before the Patiala House Courts, wherein he has sought, among other reliefs, direction to the Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation ("SDMC", for short) to remove or demolish the alleged construction carried out by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC", for short) in that Suit, which is also pending adjudication.

3. The grievance of the petitioner, which led to the filing of a Suit by him, was the issuance of two Show-Cause Notices under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, ("DMC Act", for short) on 14th December, 2019 and 17th January, 2020 alleging deviations and excess coverage from the "Standard Plan of the DDA". The request of the petitioner for supply of the said Standard Plan of DDA was not accepted and as a result, he was unable to file proper replies to the said Notices. It is his further case that another Show-Cause Notice under Sections 343 /344 of the DMC Act was issued to him on 30th September, 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic to which the petitioner submitted a reply. However, the respondent/SDMC passed the impugned order dated 15th December, 2020 directing the demolition of alleged unauthorized construction.

4. In his suit, the petitioner had sought ex parte injunction against the respondent/SDMC to restrain them from carrying out the demolition at the suit premises as ordered by it. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 8th January, 2021 found no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the application refusing to restrain the respondent/SDMC from demolishing the construction carried out by the petitioner at the suit premises. Aggrieved, the petitioner then approached the Appellate Court, which too dismissed his appeal vide the impugned judgement dated 24th March, 2021.

5. Mr. Anil K. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that both the courts below have overlooked the Supreme Court's decisions in M.C. Mehta vs. UOI & Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 186 and in Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. MCD & Ors., (1993) 3 SSC 161 and had therefor

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