Delhi District Court
Sh. Dhanraj Puri vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 9 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. YOGESH KHANNA,
DISTT. & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTHWEST),
ROOM NO. 401, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
MCD Appeal No. 01/14
Sh. Dhanraj Puri
s/o Sh. Goswami Parmanand Puri
r/o Plot No. 12 (Part)
Sawan Park Extension
Delhi ........Appellant
Vs.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner
Minto Road, City Civic Centre
New Delhi ..........Respondent
Date of institution : 01.05.2014
Date of hearing arguments : 26.09.2015
Date of Judgment : 09.10.2015
JUDGMENT
This Judgment shall govern the disposal of an appeal u/s 347 D of the DMC Act, filed by the appellant against an Order dated MCD Appeal No. 01/14 Page 1 of 8 24.04.2014 passed by the Ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD, whereby the Ld. Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal, MCD, had refused to grant stay against the demolition in the impugned premises.
1. The brief facts, as per the appeal, which are germane for the disposal of the present appeal are that late Sh. Goswami Chandanpuri was a sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the plot/house bearing no. 12, Khasra No. 677, Sawan Park Extension (earlier known as Revenue Estate, Village Wazirpuri, Delhi), measuring about 266 sq. yards and that after the death of Sh. Goswami Chandanpuri, the said plot/house devolved upon Sh. Parmanand Puri, the father of the appellant and one Sh. Om Prakash Puri. It is further stated that after the death of Sh. Om Prakash Puri, his sons namely Rajesh and Narender Puri were given a plot admeasuring about 96 sq. yards by mutual settlement on a partition of the impugned property, thereby leaving an area of about 170 sq. yards with the father of the appellant.
It is further alleged that one Sh. Tulsi Ram Seth and Sh. Bhagwana claimed their bhumidari rights in the impugned MCD Appeal No. 01/14 Page 2 of 8 property and hence, on 08.01.1970 a suit bearing no. 13/R entitled "Tulsi Ram & Bhagwano vs. Parmanand & Ors." was filed, which stood dismissed by Sh. C.D. Sharma, Ld. Revenue Assistant, Delhi, vide Judgment/Order dated 17.03.1973. Hence, the father of the appellant remained to be an owner of the impugned property. It is further alleged that said Judgment dated 17.03.1973 clearly shows that the impugned plot bearing no. 12, Khasra No. 677, Sawan Park Extension, Delhi, has 12 rooms and those rooms were let out to the different tenants by the father of the appellant.
It is further alleged that after the death of the father of the appellant, the intention of Kishan Puri, the real brother of the appellant became dishonest despite the fact that he was already given and handed over a built up property i.e. Plot No. 65, Khasra No. 677, Sawan Park Extension, Delhi, admeasuring about 100 sq. yards, by the father of the appellant, during his life time. Hence, it is alleged that Kishan Puri is not entitled to get any share in the impugned property which exclusively belongs to the appellant.
It is further alleged by the appellant that the impugned MCD Appeal No. 01/14 Page 3 of 8 property was bequeathed to the appellant by his father by virtue of a Will and hence, Kishan Puri started filing complaints/suits before the concerned authorities and one such suit he filed was a suit for injunction bearing suit no. 543/2013 titled as "Goswami K. Puri vs. Yudhvir Puri Goswami & Ors." before the Court of Sh. Shailender Malik, Sr. Civil Judge, Delhi, with a motive to harass and pressurize the appellant to give further share in the impugned property. It is further alleged that since Kishan Puri has already received his due share in various other properties and since a Will of the impugned property is in favour of the appellant, the appellant contested the said suit. However, during the proceedings of the suit no. 543/13, the Hon'ble Court sought from the Corporation a status report of the construction in the impugned property. The said construction was reported to be unauthorized and hence, the orders for demolition of the unauthorized construction were issued by the respondent/NDMC.
The appellant being aggrieved of the demolition order, filed an appeal u/s 343 and 347B of the DMC Act before the Ld. Appellate Tribunal. However, after the service of the notice MCD Appeal No. 01/14 Page 4 of 8 of the said appeal, the respondent/NDMC passed yet another order of sealing, bearing no. 846/EE(B)II/CLZ/14 dated 17.02.2014, in respect of the impugned property. The appellant thus filed yet another appeal bearing no. 176/2014 thereby challenging the impugned sealing order dated 17.02.2014, which appeal is also pending before the Ld. Appellant Tribunal, MCD. However, vide order dated 24.04.2014, in appeal bearing no. 29/14, the Ld. Appellant Tribunal, MCD, refused to grant stay against the demolition and sealing orders on the ground that the appellant has himself admitted that he had raised the construction after demolishing of the old construction without any sanction from the MCD. Hence, the present appeal.
2. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent/NDMC, however, the respondent did not chose to file any reply to the present appeal.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the entire record including the impugned order dated 24.04.2014.
The facts suggest that even if such admission is made by the appellant and even if the regularization application of the MCD Appeal No. 01/14 Page 5 of 8 appellant has been rejected, still it is an admitted fact that the appellant had yet again applied for reopening of the rejected regularization application and the Ld. Appellate Tribunal had fixed the matter for October 2015 for filing of a status report to consider the said reopening application of the regularization. It is not in dispute that some portion of the impugned property had already been demolished by the NDMC and now only 2 or 3 rooms are left in the entire property in which the appellant is residing along with his family.
Now since unauthorized construction has already been demolished by the respondent/NDMC, as mentioned in its status reports dated 04.01.2014 and 28.03.2014 and since it is alleged that whatever is remaining, is only an old construction wherein the appellant is residing along with his family and that some of his tenants are occupying the shops and rooms for the last number of years and since, the Ld. Appellant Tribunal had fixed the matter for further hearing i.e. for filing of status report qua reopening application for the regularization, so in my considered opinion, the Ld. Appellate Tribunal ought to have waited till such application is disposed of by the MCD Appeal No. 01/14 Page 6 of 8 respondent/NDMC. The Ld. Appellate Tribunal ought not to have acted in haste by refusing to grant interim relief to the appellant when the Ld. Appellate Tribunal itself had posted the matter for filing of the status report on such reopening of the regularization application, especially considering the fact that the major portion of the impugned property has already been demolished and it is only a small portion, lying in possession of the appellant and his family is left, where they are residing.
4. In these circumstances, I hereby modify the impugned order dated 24.04.2014 to the extent that the impugned plot/house bearing no. 12, Khasra No. 677, Sawan Park Extension (earlier known as Revenue Estate, Village Wazirpuri, Delhi), be not further demolished till the status report is filed by the respondent/NDMC on the reopening application of regularization of the appellant. However, if such application is rejected by the authority, then this interim order shall cease and the Ld. Appellate Tribunal may proceed as per law. The parties are left to bear their own cost. Record of the Appellate Tribunal be returned alongwith an attested copy of the Judgment MCD Appeal No. 01/14 Page 7 of 8 passed today. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completing the necessary formalities.
Announced in the open Court
today i.e. 09.10.2015 (YOGESH KHANNA)
Distt. & Sessions Judge (N/W)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
MCD Appeal No. 01/14 Page 8 of 8