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.
Sulekh Malik - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10125 of 2021 & CM. Appl. 31236 of 2021
Decided On : 17-01-2022




Construction activities must adhere to sanctioned building plans to ensure structural integrity and prevent unauthorized modifications affecting neighboring properties.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Unauthorized construction - Direction given to cease unauthorized construction at specified property unless sanctioned building plan is obtained - Respondent undertakes to maintain structural integrity - Court exercises jurisdiction to ensure compliance with building regulations. (Paras 4-7)

(B) Construction activity - Structural integrity - Concern raised over unauthorized construction affecting structural integrity - Measures directed to protect the property from compromised foundation due to activities at adjacent property. (Paras 3, 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner complained of unauthorized construction at a neighboring property adversely affecting the structural integrity of his own property through basement digging - The Corporation confirmed there was no sanctioned building plan for the construction.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondent to ensure no unauthorized construction takes place, to strengthen the property boundary, and to refill excavated ground to uphold structural integrity.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around unauthorized construction activities affecting neighboring properties and ensuring compliance with building regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for maintaining structural integrity while also reiterating the importance of sanctioned building plans before any construction could proceed.

Result: Petition disposed with directions for compliance.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks to stop unauthorized construction. (Para 2)
2. counsel arguments on property integrity and lack of permit. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. undertaking accepted by the court. (Para 6)
4. directions given to ensure compliance with building regulations. (Para 7)
5. contempt application retracted and order to be published. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondents to stop the illegal unauthorized construction activity being carried out in House No.12, measuring 200 square yards in Khasra No.52, situated in the revenue estate of village-Kishan Garh, Mehrauli, Delhi, now known as Bhawani Kunj, D-2, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of digging of the basement, the structural integrity of the property of the petitioner has been affected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that there is no sanctioned building plan for raising the construction. He submits that in terms of the order dated 14.09.2021, property of the petitioner was inspected and respondent No.2 was directed to raise a wall in the basement to ensure that there is no damage to the property of the petitioner and structural integrity thereof is maintained.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 undertakes on behalf of respondent No.2 that no unauthorized construction activity shall be carried out in the subject property and no construction shall be carried out until and unless a building plan is sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. He further submits that respondent No.2 shall build a wall as directed by the officers of the Corporation to ensure that structural integrity of the property of the petitioner is protected.

6. The undertaking is accepted.

7. In view of the above, this petition is disposed with following directions:

(i) Respondent/Corporation shall ensure that no unauthorized construction activity is carried out in the subject property except in accordance with a sanctioned building plan.

(ii) Respondent No.2 shall ensure that the wall as directed by the officers of the Corporation is built and the earth that has moved from underneath the property of the petitioner is re-filled so that the structural integrity of the property is preserved.

(iii) No construction shall be raised on the subject property by respondent No.2 until and unless a building plan is sanctioned by the Corporation.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the above directions and disposal of the petition, he shall not be pressing the contempt application that has already been filed but not listed.

9. 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