IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Hoshiar Singh - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7025 of 2021 & CM Appls. 22196 of 2021, 39791 of 2021 and 42856 of 2021
Decided On : 24-01-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and occupancy of property subject to dispute. (Para 2 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. claim of unauthorized construction and appeal proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. court's non-involvement in property identity merits. (Para 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. direction for action based on mcd tribunal's outcome. (Para 10 , 11 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to take action against alleged illegal, unauthorized construction being raised by respondent No.3 in property No.91-C, Gali No.4, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3 is owner of property No.101 and not 91-C and he has a sanction plan for raising construction on property No.101.
4. He further submits that by a subsequent order dated 10.12.2021, the sanction plan has been revoked and he has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and by order dated 23.12.2021, the Appellate Tribunal, MCD has directed status quo to be maintained in respect of the said property.
5. He submits that no construction activity is being carried out in the subject property at the present time as the structure is already complete.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the contention of respondent that he is owner of property No.101 is incorrect as from the site plan it is quite clear that petitioner is physically in occupation of property No.91-C and the construction was being raised in property No.91-C.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.11, 13 to 15 submits that they are co-owners of property No.91-C and respondent No.3 is raising construction on property No.91-C under the garb of claiming it to be property No.101.
8. This is disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
9. Since the sole relief in the subject petition was with regard to a direction to the respondent Corporation to take action against alleged illegal, unauthorised construction and the respondent Corporation has already revoked the sanction plan and is taking further action in accordance with law. Further, it may be noticed that respondent No.3 has already availed of its remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
10. Accordingly this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to take further action in accordance with law subject to the outcome of the appeal.
11. It is directed that in case any further action is called for against the property of respondent No.3 in terms of the order of the MCD Appellate Tribunal, respondent Corporation shall expeditiously take the same.
12. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the contention of the petitioner or respondent No.3 with regard to the identity of the subject property.
13. Further, petitioner as also respondent Nos.11, 13 to 15 are given liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal, MCD for the purposes of impleadment. On such an application being filed, the Appellate Tribunal, MCD shall consider the same in accordance with law without being influenced by anything stated herein.
14. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
The court reiterated that unauthorized construction issues should be dealt with by the municipal corporation, while appeals regarding property ownership must be resolved through the appropriate tribu....
The court's decision was influenced by the Corporation's revocation of the sanction plan and the pendency of an appeal before the appellate Tribunal, MCD, without making any determination on the meri....
The Court directed the corporation to act against unauthorized construction based on the outcome of an ongoing appeal, emphasizing that appellate bodies must operate independently.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice and legal requirements in construction activities, ensuring no unauthorized actions occur without proper sanction.
Unauthorized construction can be regularized upon payment of a compounding fee, negating the necessity for further court action.
Unauthorized construction without proper permits is subject to court orders and potential contempt charges if violations occur.
Construction activities must adhere to sanctioned building plans to ensure structural integrity and prevent unauthorized modifications affecting neighboring properties.
Unconditional apology with a cost and subjecting further construction activity to the orders of the appellate Tribunal-MCD.
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.