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.
Veer Singh - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Coporations - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1041 of 2022 & CM Appls. 2961-62 of 2022
Decided On : 17-01-2022




Property owners are entitled to seek remedies for damages caused by construction activities on adjacent properties, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with sanctioned plans.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act - Petitioner seeks to restrain construction activities on disputed property due to alleged damage from adjacent construction. Respondents maintain that they have a sanctioned building plan. Court directs inspection to determine if sanctioned plan compliance exists and if damage has occurred to petitioner's property. (Paras 2-10)

(B) Rights of Property Owners - Petitioner's property damage claims reviewed; respondents agree to repair if any damage is confirmed. Legal rights of adjacent property owners emphasized alongside adherence to sanctioned construction plans. (Paras 5, 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims damage to property No.11 due to unauthorized basement construction at adjacent property No.12. Respondents state that construction is sanctioned, and repairs will be made if damage occurs.

Findings of Court:
Court orders an inspection of the properties by the respondent Corporation officers to ascertain compliance with building regulations and potential damage.

Issues: Main issues include the legitimacy of construction on property No.12 and the responsibilities regarding damages caused to the petitioner's property No.11.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underlines the necessity of following sanctioned plans in construction, reaffirming property rights and the obligation to rectify damages if attributable to construction activities.

Result: Petition disposed of with directives for inspection and potential repairs.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks restraint on construction due to property damage. (Para 2 , 3)
2. respondents argue construction is sanctioned and damage claims are disputed. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court directs inspection and potential repairs on discovered damages. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. petition dismissed with directions for compliance. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT

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

2. Petitioner seeks a restraint on the respondents from raising any construction in property bearing No.12, Vivekanand Puri, Sarai Rohilla, New Delhi.

3. It is contended that on account of the construction that is being raised in the subject property and digging of the basement, the property of the petitioner being property No.11, Vivekanand Puri, Sarai Rohilla, New Delhi tilted and got damaged.

4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as also by counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that there is a sanctioned plan for raising construction and even construction of the basement has been sanctioned.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that certain compensation was sought by the petitioner and which was not acceded to on account of which the subject petition has been filed. He disputes the photographs placed on record. He submits that the adjoining area had fallen down on its own and immediate steps for repair of the same were undertaken.

7. He however submits that in case any damage has been caused to the property of the petitioner on account of the construction activity, said respondents undertake to have the property of the petitioner repaired expeditiously at their own costs.

8. Without prejudice to the dispute being raised by respondent 2 to 4, the officers of the respondent Corporation are directed to inspect both property No.11 and property No. 12 within one week to ascertain as to whether the construction being carried out in property No.12 is in accordance with the sanctioned building plan or not and further as to whether any damage has been caused to the property of the petitioner i.e. property No.11, Vivekanand Puri, Sarai Rohilla, New Delhi on account of said construction.

9. In case it is found that there is any damage to the property of the petitioner because of the construction being carried out by respondent Nos.2 to 4 remedial steps be suggested by the officers.

10. On such remedial steps being suggested, respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall immediately rectify the same at their own costs.

11. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

12. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email 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