Delhi District Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Sh. Kuljeet Singh Kochar on 23 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT010001382011
MCD Appeal 3020/2016
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Now North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner
Civic Centre JLN Marg
Minto Road, New Delhi. .....Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Kuljeet Singh Kochar
S/o Late Sh. Suchet Singh Kochar
2. Sh. Varinder Singh Kochar
S/o Late Sh. Suchet Singh Kochar
3. Smt. Maninder Kaur
W/o Late Sh. Suchet Singh Kochar
4. Sh. Bhupinder Singh Kochar
S/o Late Sh. Suchet Singh Kochar
All R/o A305, Derawal Nagar
Delhi110009.
MCD Appeal 3020/16 North DMC vs. Kuljeet Singh Kochar & Ors. Page 1 of 10
5. Sh. Suneet Pal Sachdeva
S/o Sh. D.P.S.Sachdeva
R/o BD46, Pitampura
Delhi110034.
6. M/s Maja Constructions Ltd.
A company incorporated under the Companies Act
Regd. Office: B1/8, Pusa Road
New Delhi110005.
7. M/s Green Hill Estate Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under the Companies Act
Regd. Office: A305, Derawal Nagar
New Delhi110033.
8. M/s Twinkle Estate Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under the Companies Act
Regd. Office: A305, Derawal Nagar
New Delhi110033.
9. M/s Sunbeeam Promoters & Builders Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under the Companies Act
Regd. Office: A305, Derawal Nagar
New Delhi110033.
10. M/s Pradigm Project Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under the Companies Act
Regd. Office: B255, Derawal Nagar
New Delhi110033.
11. M/s G.K.S. Projects Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under the Companies Act
Regd. Office: C1/7, Tibia College
Karol Bagh,New Delhi.
MCD Appeal 3020/16 North DMC vs. Kuljeet Singh Kochar & Ors. Page 2 of 10
12. M/s Akash Projects Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under the Companies Act
Regd. Office: BD41, Pitampura,
New Delhi110034.
All through their attorney/authorised signatory
Sh. Bhupender Singh Kochar
S/o Sh. Suchet Singh Kochar
R/o A305, Derawal Nagar, New Delhi.
13. Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Vasdev Aggarwal
14. Smt. Sadna Aggarwal
W/o Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal
Both R/o 28A, Racquet Court Road
Alipur Road, Civil Lines,
Delhi110054.
15. Sh. Virender Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Kishan Dass Gupta
16. Smt. Raj Rani Gupta
W/o Sh. Virender Gupta
17. Sh. Ruchir Gupta
S/o Sh. Virender Gupta
18. Sh. Mudit Gupta
S/o Sh. Virender Gupta
All R/o 3, Court Road, Civil Lines,
Alipur Road, Delhi110054. .....Respondents
Date of filing of Appeal : 29.10.2011
MCD Appeal 3020/16 North DMC vs. Kuljeet Singh Kochar & Ors. Page 3 of 10
Date of reserving Order : 01.06.2018
Date of Order : 23.07.2018
ORDER ON ON APPEAL UNDER SECTION 347(D)
OF DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957
Appellant/North DMC has filed the present appeal against impugned order dated 30.09.2011 passed by Ld. AT:MCD Delhi whereby sealing order dated 06.12.2010 passed against property bearing No. 10, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi was set aside and the appellant North DMC was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ as damages and Rs.5,000/ as litigation costs to each of the 18 appellants before Ld. AT:MCD. North DMC was also directed to bear the bills paid by respondents herein towards restoration of electricity and water connections in the property in question.
2. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents. Record of AT:MCD was summoned. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that sanctioned plan was granted in respect of property in question on 19.03.2005, which remained in force till 18.09.2010 and after that no construction could have been raised without revalidation of sanctioned Plan; Evacuee Department of Delhi Government on 30.03.2009 informed MCD Appeal 3020/16 North DMC vs. Kuljeet Singh Kochar & Ors. Page 4 of 10 the appellant that property belonged to them, so construction be stopped; notice to both the parties was issued and they were heard; revocation of sanctioned plan was kept in abeyance; Notice under Section 344 of DMC Act to stop the construction was issued; but construction still continued, and show cause notice for sealing was issued and property was sealed on 07.12.2010 as Section 345 of the DMC Act. It is further submitted that desealing of the property in question has already been done in pursuance to order of AT:MCD; sanctioned plan has already been revalidated; property has already been constructed and respondents are in occupation thereof; electricity and water connections have been restored and respondents are enjoying the possession. It is prayed that imposition of damages and litigation costs on North DMC and order for bearing cost of bills of restoration of electricity and water may be waived off and appeal may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that one Sh. Hazi Abdul Kareem was original owner of the property, who owned more than 100 properties; he had approached the Settlement Commissioner and all his properties were declared as nonevacue properties; he died in 1956; his legal heirs divided the properties in 1968; property in question came to share of Sh. Mohd Idris and Mst. Fatima, who sold the property to the respondents herein; it is a heritage property; permission from Construction MCD Appeal 3020/16 North DMC vs. Kuljeet Singh Kochar & Ors. Page 5 of 10 Committee was received on 02.09.2005; Building was constructed; a letter from Land & Building Department, GNCT of Delhi was received by MCD; respondents approached the Settlement Commisioner and letter dated 30.03.2009 was liable to be withdrawn by the Asstt. Settlement Commissioner; property was sealed and sanctioned plans were revoked and no entry could have been made in the revenue record after Municipality came into existence (after 1953) but the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and MCD officials had wrongly relied upon such entry.
5. The background of the present case is that the appellants are joint owners of property bearing no.10, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi; they had got sanctioned building plan for construction of the same on 19.09.2005 and started construction thereon. On 01.04.2009, the respondent had received a notice undre Section 344 of DMC Act for stoppage of work. They had also received notice under Section 338 of the DMC Act for cancellation of sanctioned building plan on the basis of complaint made by Assistant Settlement Commissioner; thereafter, another show cause notice of sealing was received by the respondent and ultimately, the sealing order dated 07.12.2010 was passed by the competent authority.
6. Inititially, a complaint dated 20.01.2010 was made by Sh. Parlad Singh Sawhney, MLA regarding illegal construction in two properties including the property in question. A report was called and MCD Appeal 3020/16 North DMC vs. Kuljeet Singh Kochar & Ors. Page 6 of 10 in the inspection report submitted by JE (Builiding) on 14.06.2010; it was reported that there was no illegal construction in the property in question and the construction was being raised in terms of sanctioned building plan.
7. Thereafter, another complaint was made by Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Evacuee Property that illegal construction was being raised in the property in question, which is a government land and same be stopped. A show cause notice for revocation of sanctioned building plan was issued to the respondents who had filed reply and attended personal hearing. Sh. Ram Kishan, Assistant Settlement Commission was also called during hearing but he could not give proper reply and stated that complaint was lodged only due to one entry in Jamabandi of Revenue Department. It is interesting to note that this complaint dated 30.03.2009 of Assistant Settlement Commissioner was doubted by the Appellant itself when the matter came to the knowlege of Building HQs and due to this reason, the revocation of a building plan was kept in abeyance but to the contrary, a notice to stop construction was issued to the respondents. The respondents had placed on record Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1949 in which the property in question is not shown as 'evacuee property'. Even the records placed on record by the competent authority prove that the properties of Hazi Abdul Kareem (original owner of the property in question) were declared as non MCD Appeal 3020/16 North DMC vs. Kuljeet Singh Kochar & Ors. Page 7 of 10 evacuee properties. Even the letter dated 15.09.2010, of Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India proves that the property in question is not an enemy property. Even the copy of the letter dated 20.07.2009 of counsel for Land and Building proves that the property in question was not an evacuee property; even the proceeding sheets of Assistant Settlement Commissioner clearly says that the property in question was never declared as evacuee property and land and building department never recovered any rent or damages from its occupants; even the Assistant Settlement Commissioner had stated that the complaint made by him to MCD regarding stoppage of construction in the property in question be withdrawn. Thuse, the complaint dated 30.03.2009 which was made basis to initiate action in the present case and ultimately resulting into sealing of the property does not survive and is deemed to have been withdrawn. Consequently, the proceedings conducted by the MCD right from issuing of show cause notice for revocation of sanctioned plan and stoppage of work to sealing of property in question became infractuous.
8. The respondents had produced documents before the appellant and even attended proceedings but the same were not considered by the appellant; on the one hand, the revocation of sanctioned plan was kept in abeyance and on the other hand, a show cause notice was issud to the respondents to stop the work. The North DMC deliberately waited till the expiry of sanctioned plan and only MCD Appeal 3020/16 North DMC vs. Kuljeet Singh Kochar & Ors. Page 8 of 10 thereafter, undertook the proceedings of sealing of the property. Being so much pained by the act of the appellant, sealing order was set aside by Ld. AT:MCD and the damages and litigation costs were imposed on North DMC.
9. But in pursuance to impugned order dated 30.09.2011 of Ld. AT:MCD the property in question was desealed; the sanctioned plan was revalidated; construction in the property in question has been completed and the respondents are in occupation thereof. Electricity and water have been restored in the property in question and the respondents are enjoying the possession peacefully. The officials of Appellant had acted on receipt of information from Assistant Settlement Commissioner for initiating action in respect of property in dispute but no malafide intentions can be imputed to officials of MCD. In view of this, I am of the view that the penal part of the impugned judgment needs modification. Accordingly, award of damages of Rs.50,000/ and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/ to each of 18 appellants before Ld. AT:MCD and the cost of restoration of electricity and water charges to be borne by the MCD are waived off. Except this modification, no other interference is called for. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
10. Record of Ld. AT:MCD be sent back along with copy of the order.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
MCD Appeal 3020/16 North DMC vs. Kuljeet Singh Kochar & Ors. Page 9 of 10 Digitally signed by TALWANT TALWANT SINGH
SINGH Date:
2018.07.25
15:36:47 +0530
Announced in the open Court (TALWANT SINGH)
Dated: 23rd July, 2018 District & Sessions Judge (HQs)
Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi
MCD Appeal 3020/16 North DMC vs. Kuljeet Singh Kochar & Ors. Page 10 of 10