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
| 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.
Construction activities must adhere to sanctioned building plans to ensure structural integrity and prevent unauthorized modifications affecting neighboring properties.
Requirement of a sanctioned building plan and measures to protect structural integrity in property disputes.
Unauthorized construction without proper permits is subject to court orders and potential contempt charges if violations occur.
Unconditional apology with a cost and subjecting further construction activity to the orders of the appellate Tribunal-MCD.
Property owners are entitled to seek remedies for damages caused by construction activities on adjacent properties, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with sanctioned plans.
Court upheld adherence to sanctioned building plans in response to petitioner's claims of unauthorized construction and confirmed respondent's undertaking for property repairs.
The obligation of the respondents to repair any damage caused to the petitioner's property due to construction activity at their own costs.
The court's decision was influenced by the adherence to the sanctioned building plan and environmental norms, leading to the disposal of the petition with a specific direction for repair of the bound....
Unauthorized construction claims must be substantiated with verified facts; existence of a sanctioned plan negates the basis for legal intervention.
Unauthorized construction can be regularized upon payment of a compounding fee, negating the necessity for further court action.
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.