Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Ramesh Chandra – Appellant
Versus
East Delhi Municipal Corporation – Respondent
| 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of sanction of building plan for construction of second and third floor of property number 59, Sukh Vihar, Delhi has been revoked.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 fl
The court's decision emphasized the opportunity for the petitioner to seek regularization of the building plan and the restraint on coercive action until the application is disposed of.
The court mandated acceptance and processing of regularization applications for rectified unauthorized constructions and prohibited coercive actions during review, reinforcing legal compliance in mun....
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....
Unauthorized construction cannot be ordered for demolition when there is no current activity, and the municipality must consider regularization applications as per legal standards.
The court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in revocation decisions and clarified interim protection applicable until the Appellate Tribunal resumes functions.
A timely decision on regularization applications is essential to safeguard properties from premature demolition actions.
The court reiterated that unauthorized constructions can be demolished if they do not comply with building bye-laws, while allowing a deferral for an appeal process before the Appellate Tribunal.
Direction for lawful action regarding unauthorized construction depends on the outcomes of pending appeal and regularization applications, ensuring no prejudice to ongoing legal matters.
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
