Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Inderjeet Vachher – Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for action against unauthorized construction (Para 2) |
| 2. status of demolition and appeals before mcd (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. direction for legal compliance by mcd (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. final orders and notification (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent/Corporation to take action against the alleged illegal unauthorized construction carried out by respondents No.2 and 3 in property bearing number F-68, Bali Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that Municipal Corporation has duly taken action and passed a demolition order dated 21.06.2021 and has also rejected the application seeking regularization of the unauthorized construction by order dated 12.08.2021. He further submits that a vacation notice dated 08.09.2021 has also been issued.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the said respondents have filed appeals against the order of demolition, order of rejection of regularization application and the vacation notice and the said appeals are pending consideration befor
The court reiterated that unauthorized constructions can be demolished if they do not comply with building bye-laws, while allowing a deferral for an appeal process before the Appellate Tribunal.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of allowing the respondents to avail of their remedy before the Appellate Tribunal-MCD in cases of unauthorized construction and demolition actions.
The court's decision was influenced by the need to provide the respondents with an opportunity to approach the appellate Tribunal-MCD and seek remedy in accordance with the law.
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 that unauthorized construction enforcement must respect legal processes and pending appeals, leaving petitioner's standing open for further consideration.
The court's decision was based on the respondent's assurance of further action in accordance with the law and the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
Unauthorized construction cannot be defended based on inaction against other similar violations; each case must be treated according to its own merits.
The principle of negative equality does not apply, and action can be taken against unauthorized construction regardless of inaction by the Corporation on other illegal constructions in the society.
Direction for lawful action regarding unauthorized construction depends on the outcomes of pending appeal and regularization applications, ensuring no prejudice to ongoing legal matters.
Unauthorized construction can be regularized upon payment of a compounding fee, negating the necessity for further court action.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
