J U D G M E N T

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-Resident Welfare Association Block-12, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi [hereinafter referred as “petitioner-Association”] being aggrieved by the purported inaction of the erstwhile South Delhi Municipal Corporation and alleged wrongful closure of the complaints.

2. It is the petitioner-Association‟s case that members of the petitioner-Association are residents of 12/1 to 12/20 Subhash Nagar, New Delhi and their houses are located adjacent to SFS Housing at Subhash Nagar (now known as “Rajouri Apartments”). It is alleged that the residents of respondent No.5-Rajouri Apartments have wrongfully and illegally constructed a boundary wall, opposite to the residences of the members of the petitioner-Association, thereby, encroaching upon the government land. The boundary wall in question, therefore, caused a public nuisance and blocked the passage of the members of the petitioner-Association to approach public utilities like parks, gymnasium, and recreation centres, including Priyadarshini Park. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioner-Association has filed the instant petition and prayed for the following reliefs:-

“a. Direct the office of Executive Engineer SDMC and Commissioner of SDMC to demolish the Boundary Wall constructed illegally opposite to residence of member of Petitioner Association. And/or b. Direct the office of Executive Engineer SDMC (Respondent No. 1), to act in furtherance to its letter dated December 15, 2020 and December 28, 2020 addressed to Respondent No. 6 (SFS Flats) to demolish the Boundary wall AND c. Direct the office of Executive Engineer SDMC (Respondent No. 1), to act in furtherance to its letter dated March 28, 2013 addressed to Petitioner and clear the passage to provide access to Priyadarshini Park , recreation center and other public utilities.”

3. On notice being issued to the respondents, a status report came to be filed by the respondent-Corporation and counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondent-Delhi Development Authority [hereinafter referred as “respondent-DDA”] and respondent No.5-

Rajouri Apartments.

4. On 20.01.2022, this Court noted that there was a dispute with respect to the date on which the boundary wall was constructed and directed the respondent-DDA to verify whether the boundary wall was located within the allotted land to respondent No.5-Rajouri Apartments or outside it.

5. Vide another order dated 18.07.2023, it was noted that individual flats were allotted to the members of the respondent No.5- Rajouri Apartments Society and there was no layout plan with respect to the entire colony. The respondent-DDA was, therefore, directed to state as to whether the boundary wall in question was constructed by it prior to the allotment of flats as contended by respondent No.5. Meanwhile, in accordance with the order dated 18.07.2023, petitioner-

Association has placed on record copies of the layout map.

6. On 27.09.2023, it was stated on behalf of the respondent-DDA that the layout plan did not include the boundary wall at the time of allotment of land to respondent No.5.

7. Therefore, on a conspectus of the factual matrix as enumerated above, it is seen that on one hand, the petitioner-Association‟s case is that the boundary wall was constructed by the residents of respondent No.5-Rajouri Apartments after allotment of the land to them, whereas on the other hand, the case of respondent No.5-Rajouri Apartments is that the boundary wall existed since inception.

8. Ms. Sonal Alagh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Association, while challenging the impugned inaction of the respondents, submits that the layout plan as placed on record by her and the stand of the respondent-DDA unequivocally establish that the boundary wall in question has been constructed by the residents of respondent No.5-Rajouri Apartments, without there being any approval from any Authority. She has taken the Court to the concerned layout plan in order