The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 does not extend to re-evaluating lower court decisions but ensures they act within their authority; unauthorized constructions cannot be permitted to persist.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails judgment dated 14th September 2022, passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (the learned Pr. DSJ), on an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 9th August 2021 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the learned AT MCD).

2. A brief conspectus of facts is necessary at the outset.

3. On 26th September 2011, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) issued a show cause notice under Section 344(1) read with Section 343 of the DMC Act, 1957 alleging that unauthorized constructions had taken place at T-72, Village Hauz Khas, New Delhi and calling on the owners/builders of the said property to show cause as to why the construction be not demolished. This was followed by a demolition order dated 7th October 2011. The petitioner challenged the said show cause as well as the demolition order before this Court by way of WP(C) 773/2013 (Sher Mohammad v. MCD).

4. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by the following order, passed on 8th February 2013:

"1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the notices and orders dated 26.9.2011 and 7.10.2011 issued by the respondent qua the property of the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to de-seal the property of the petitioner bearing no. T-72 Part, Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the main grievances of the petitioner is that the show cause notice dated 26.9.2011 received by the petitioner is not addressed to any person nor the description of the property in question is correct.

3. To overcome this technical objection raised by the petitioner and to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, this matter was passed over once to enable counsel for the MCD to issue a fresh show cause notice in Court to the petitioner at the particulars so produced by him.

4. At the second call, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the correct particulars of the owner/occupant are "Mr. Sher Mohammad, s/o late Sh. Alimuddin, r/o T-72 Part, Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi". Learned counsel for the MCD submits that the word "Part" in the above address should not be used as it implies that the MCD has recognised the divisibility of the property in question. It is made clear that the word "Part" has only been added with a view to avoid any technical objection, which has been raised by the respondent, that the property in question has not been described properly. It is made clear that no further objection of the petitioner will be entertained on this account.

5. Counsel for the petitioner accepts the above show cause notice. It is agreed by counsel for the parties that the notice accepted by the counsel for the petitioner shall be treated as a notice issued to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 7.10.2011 qua the property of the petitioner in question is set aside. Let reply to this notice be submitted by the petitioner to the respondent within seven days from today and thereafter the respondent will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and a copy of the order shall be served on the petiti