Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 12935
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sachin Datta, J
MOHAMMAD LAIQ – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 6904/2024
ARUN KUMAR VERMA
The court upheld the MCD's authority to act against unauthorized construction while allowing for statutory remedies for the property owner.
Headnote:(A) Municipal Corporation Act - Unauthorized construction - The petition concerns alleged unauthorized construction at a specified property, with the owner contesting the petition's maintainability due to lack of interest from the petitioner. The MCD has issued a work stop notice and is taking steps to disconnect utilities. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Petitioner's stance - The petitioner does not press the petition, leading to its disposal while acknowledging the MCD's actions. (Paras 5-6)
(C) Statutory remedies - The order does not prevent the special task force from taking action regarding the property. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The petition addresses unauthorized construction at a property in New Delhi, with disputes over the petition's maintainability and the MCD's enforcement actions.
Findings of Court:
The petition is disposed of as the petitioner does not press it, with MCD's actions being recorded.
Issues: The main issues include the maintainability of the petition and the authority of the MCD's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court acknowledges the MCD's authority to act against unauthorized construction while allowing for statutory remedies for the property owner.
Result: Petition disposed of.
1. The present petition raises a grievance as regards alleged unauthorized construction at property bearing No.P-134, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, land measuring 200 Sq. Yds., Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
2. Learned counsel for the owner/occupier of the property in question who has entered appearance strenuously contends that the present petition is not maintainable at all inasmuch as the petitioner has no right or interest in the property in question. The said contention is, however, refuted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Be that is it may, learned counsel for the MCD submits that the property in question was inspected by the MCD pursuant to which a work stop notice has been issued by the MCD qua the property in question. Steps are also stated to have been taken by the MCD to ensure disconnection of electricity and water connections at the property in question.
4. Learned counsel for the MCD submits that further steps/action as may be warranted, shall be taken in accordance with law, in respect of the property in question.
5. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition. The same is accordingly, disposed of, taking on record the aforesaid statement by learned counsel for the MCD.
6. Needless to say, any action propose to be taken by the MCD in respect of the property in question shall be subject to the statutory/appellate remedies of the owner/occupier of the property in question.
7. The instant order shall not preclude the special task force constituted by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24.04.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 1985 titled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. from taking requisite action in respect of the property in question.
