Delhi High Court
Mr. H.L. Narang vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 8 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 94(2001)DLT227
Author: Manmohan Sarin
Bench: Manmohan Sarin
ORDER Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal.
The petitioner had submitted plans for construction to the MCD in respect of L-1/10, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi. These plans were duly sanctioned by the MCD on 4.4.2001 and construction work commenced. It appears that a neighbour of the petitioner complained. The MCD was activated into action, culminating into the passing of the impugned order, which appears at page 17 of the paper book bearing No.443/EE(B)/Cent. Zone/2001/587/UPC dated 2.72.2001.
2. By the impugned order the Deputy Commissioner MCD revoked the sanction accorded on 4.4.2001 and ordered that the work commenced/erected or done be treated as without any valid sanction. As per the said order, a show cause notice bearing No.D/414/EE(B)/Central Zone/539, dated 20.6.2001 is stated to have been sent to the petitioner,to show cause as to why the sanction should not be revoked. No reply is alleged to have been received back. Accordingly the petitioners revoked the sanction. The ground for revocation of the sanction as given in the order is "provision of side set back has been concealed in the proposal/building plans."
3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties on this aspect. The petitioner states that it is a plot of 150 sq. yards and in case the petitioner is required to leave the side set back of 6 ft., it would significantly reduce the area and materially affect the plans to prejudice of petitioner. He submits that in all the other blocks of houses in South Extension, the requirement of leaving the side set back is insisted upon only in plots of size of over 500 sq. yards or the corner plots. Plots less than 500 sq. yards are exempted from this requirement.
4. Mr. Mukherjee states that the requirement for leaving the side set back of 6 ft.is being insisted upon based on the approved lay out. In the petitioner's block of houses, the lay out has shown a side set back for plots of smaller sizes.
5. One of the grounds taken in the writ petition is that the petitioner did not receive any show cause notice and hence the revocation is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the respondent states that notice was dispatched by UPC. The petitioner reiterates that no such notices was received. Petitioner was required to be heard and given an opportunity to show cause against the impugned order. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. Respondents does not object to the same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that he would like to make a representation to the respondent to waive the requirement of 6 ft. side set back in view of this condition not being applicable to plots of similar sizes in South Extension. Counsel for the respondent submits that as and when such a representation is received, they shall duly consider the same. Let the representation be made within 2 weeks and a decision shall be taken by the respondents within 4 weeks of its receipt.
7. Pending the disposal of the representation, petitioner shall not undertake or carry out any additional construction or structural changes. Respondents shall also maintain statues quo and not proceed to take any action for demolition of the existing structure pending, the disposal of the representation. In case petitioner fails to make representation or makes any additional construction or structural changes, the impugned order shall stand revived.
Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
A copy of the order be given dusty to counsel for the parties.