Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Jitender Kumar - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13109 of 2021 & CM Appl. 41332 of 2021
Decided On : 09-03-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks protection against sealing. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent suggests appealing sealing order. (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioner wishes to withdraw with conditions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. order provides temporary relief pending appeal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. petition disposed of with terms. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner seeks a direction to restrain the respondent from sealing the subject premises of the petitioner being ground floor front side, second floor front side of building bearing Plot no.3, Block No. A, New Delhi, South Extension Scheme, Part-II and further seeks compounding of the application qua the deviations.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and impugn the order of sealing. With regard to the application for compounding, he submits that as per his instructions, no such application has been received however, in case any such application is received, same shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
3. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal MCD.
4. He, however prays that two weeks' time be granted to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
5. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
6. It is however clarified that for a period of two weeks or till the time the appeal of the petitioner is listed before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD whichever is earlier, no further action shall be taken against the property of the petitioner.
7. It is clarified that this order shall inure to the benefit of the petitioner only for a period of two weeks or till his application is listed before the Appellate Tribunal MCD, whichever is earlier.
8. Continuance of interim protection thereafter shall be subject to orders to be passed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD without being influenced by anything stated in this order.
9. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
AI
The High Court emphasized the necessity of using the statutory remedy of the Appellate Tribunal for issues related to property sealing and deviations, granting interim protection for two weeks.
The court highlighted the necessity for appellate tribunals to expedite hearings of appeals and interim matters to uphold procedural fairness.
A temporary stay on demolition cannot occur until the appellate tribunal is operational, allowing due process for appeals.
The court has the authority to restrain the respondent from proceeding with demolition proceedings for a limited period and can allow the petitioner to seek early hearing of the appeal and stay appli....
Court affirms the necessity for timely disposal of appeals concerning administrative decisions affecting property rights.
Balancing the interests of the petitioner and the actions taken by the respondents in cases of unauthorized construction.
The court may grant interim protection against demolition orders pending appeals, with conditions on further construction activities to ensure adherence to existing regulations.
The court upheld the interim protection against a demolition order, ensuring the Appellate Tribunal considers appeals without bias from the High Court's order.
A stay on a demolition order can be granted pending appeal, emphasizing the need for functioning appellate mechanisms in administrative law.
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
