Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Vikash Chopra - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P(C) 6296 of 2021 & CM Appl. 19857 of 2021
Decided On : 09-03-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks action against unauthorized construction. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent has appealed against coercive action and is considering regularization. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court directs action based on appeal and regularization outcome. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to take action against the alleged unauthorized construction on the third floor of property bearing No. F-80, Green Park (Main), New Delhi.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that respondent No.3 has already approached the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and the Appellate Tribunal, MCD by order dated 28.10.2021 in Appeal No.345/2021 has restrained the Corporation from taking any coercive action pending the appeal.
3. Learned counsel further submits that an application for regularization has also been received, which is under consideration of the Corporation. She submits that Corporation shall take action in accordance with law subject to the outcome of the appeal as well as the regularization application.
4. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take action in accordance with law subject to the outcome of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and the regularization application.
5. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. This would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and shall have no bearing on the merit of the appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
Direction for lawful action regarding unauthorized construction depends on the outcomes of pending appeal and regularization applications, ensuring no prejudice to ongoing legal matters.
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.
Municipal authorities possess the jurisdiction to enforce laws against unauthorized construction, which must be acted upon as per legal provisions, while respecting the appeals process.
The court emphasized that no direction for demolition could be issued in the absence of ongoing construction activity and that the regularization application had to be considered and disposed of in a....
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.
Unauthorized construction cannot be ordered for demolition when there is no current activity, and the municipality must consider regularization applications as per legal standards.
Unauthorized construction can be regularized upon payment of a compounding fee, negating the necessity for further court action.
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.
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
