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.
Ramesh Chandra - Appellant
Versus
East Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 100 of 2022 & CM. Appls. 237-238 of 2022
Decided On : 04-01-2022




Court permits applicant to regularize construction based on corporate policy, emphasizing timely disposal of applications and the presumption of legitimacy in ownership claims.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act - Revocation of sanction for building plan - Revocation order challenged on grounds of forgery of signatures on application - Petitioner's ownership established by registered sale deed - Court allows application for regularization of construction undertaken in compliance with corporate policy. (Paras 2-11)

(B) Administrative procedure - Floor-wise sanction permitted under extant Corporation policy. (Paras 6 and 10)

(C) Judicial economy - Court emphasizes timely disposal of applications for regularization. (Paras 10 and 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks to quash a revocation order dated 15.12.2021 for his application to build on property number 59, Sukh Vihar, Delhi, basing ownership on a sale deed and claiming no forgery occurred concerning his father's signature. (Paras 2-5)

Findings of Court:
The court permits the petitioner to file for regularization of the construction and mandates that the respondent dispose of the application in a time-bound manner. (Paras 10 and 11)

Issues: The main issue addresses the legitimacy of the revocation given the allegations of forgery and the policy on floor-wise sanctions. (Paras 2 and 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner can apply for regularization of construction already made and must be allowed due process under the current corporate policy, underscoring timely consideration of such applications. (Paras 10 and 11)

Result: Petition disposed of allowing application for regularization.

Table of Content
1. revocation of building plan sanction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. petitioner willing to seek regularization. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. regularization application process defined. (Para 10 , 11)
4. final conclusion and order issued. (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks quashing of revocation order dated 15.12.2021, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of sanction of building plan for construction of second and third floor of property number 59, Sukh Vihar, Delhi has been revoked. Petitioner further seeks a restraint on the respondent from carrying out demolition proceedings qua the property.

3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had become owner of the roof rights above the first floor by way of a registered sale deed dated 20.02.2001, which was executed by his father in his favour.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had accordingly applied for sanction of a building plan for raising construction of the second and third floor.

5. Learned counsel submits that once the plan was sanctioned, construction was raised over the second and third floor. However, subsequently, a complaint was allegedly filed by someone claiming that the signatures of the father of the petitioner on the application for sanction of the building plan were forged.

6. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had not forged any signatures. However, he submits that as per the extant policy of the Corporation, floor-wise sanction is permissible.

7. Learned counsel submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, petitioner is willing to apply for regularization of the construction already made as has been permitted by the revocation order dated 15.12.2021.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that in case a regularization application is filed expeditiously, the same shall be disposed of in a time-bound manner.

9. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall file an application seeking regularization of the second and third floor within a period of 15 days from today.

10. The petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move an application for regularization of the building plan within a period of 15 days. On such an application being filed and being in order, respondent shall disposed of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application.

11. Subject to the application being filed by the Petitioner within fifteen days, till the time application is disposed of, no coercive action shall be taken against the property of the petitioner. Coercive action, if any, thereafter shall be subject to orders to be passed by the Corporation on the regularization application.

12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

13. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through e-mail 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