IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
D.N. Patel, Jyoti Singh, JJ.
Anti Corruption Crime and Human Protection - Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 326 of 2022
Decided On : 17-01-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. public interest litigation regarding unauthorized construction (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement of cogent evidence for illegal construction claims (Para 3) |
| 3. directive for the respondents to evaluate grievances (Para 4) |
| 4. duties of respondents if construction is found illegal (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
D.N. Patel, Chief Justice (Oral)
Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing.
W.P.(C) 326/2022 & CM APPL. 930/2022 (Stay)
1. Present Public Interest Litigation has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) take necessary/appropriate action to demolish the existing illegal and unlawful unauthorized construction on House No.110, Gali No.17, Near Umar Masjid, Jakir Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi- 110025 ;
(b) restrain the respondent No. 6 from creating third Party interest by selling, alienating the abovesaid illegal construction to prospected purchasers,
(c) take necessary/appropriate action against the respondent No. 6 for violation of the public policy and by laws adopted by the Government authority"
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and have looked into the facts and circumstances of the case. Petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the Respondents No.1 to 5 to demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction in House bearing No.110, Gali No.17, Near Umar Masjid, Jakir Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
3. It needs no gainsaying that the legality or otherwise of a construction cannot be established/proved merely on the basis of documents and photographs, annexed to a writ petition. Cogent evidence is required for the Court to appreciate the illegality and extent of illegal and unauthorized construction, which cannot be done in a writ jurisdiction. It is a settled law that disputed questions of fact or appreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of a writ court exercising jurisdiction in a judicial review. Merely by looking at the documents annexed by the Petitioner to the writ petition, it is not possible for this Court to arrive at any conclusion on the status of construction in question. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain the present petition.
4. Nonetheless, looking to the fact that the Petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court and flagged the issue of an alleged unauthorized construction, we hereby direct the concerned Respondents to look into the grievances ventilated by the Petitioner in the representation dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of the writ petition) and take a decision thereon, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policies, and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard, to the owners/occupiers of the premises in question.
5. Needless to state that if the construction in question is found to be illegal/unauthorized, the same shall be demolished by the concerned Respondents, in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible.
6. With these observations and directions, the writ petition along with the pending application is hereby disposed of.
Writ jurisdiction is not suitable for adjudicating disputed questions of fact regarding legality of construction; appropriate remedies must be pursued instead.
Public interest litigation is not applicable when targeting a specific property owned by an individual, and separate legal actions must be pursued for such disputes.
Vague allegations in a public interest litigation regarding unauthorized construction without cogent evidence are insufficient for judicial intervention, necessitating proper factual inquiries.
Public Interest Litigation requires proper standing and evidence; a petitioner must join affected parties and cannot solely rely on hearsay.
Lack of evidence, ground work, and public interest element in a public interest litigation may lead to the dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs on the petitioner.
A public interest litigation must be substantiated with credible evidence and involve necessary parties; failure to do so may result in dismissal.
Proof of illegality in construction must be supported by substantive evidence; mere presence of construction materials is insufficient.
Writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate factual disputes; grievances should be treated as representations for resolution by appropriate authorities under relevant laws.
Demolition of unauthorized constructions requires due process, including the right to be heard for affected owners/occupiers.
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.