Delhi District Court
Shri K.K. Aneja vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 5 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU MALHOTRA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI
RCA No. 31/2012
U/s. 347 (D) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,
1957
Unique ID No. 02401C0296752012
Shri K.K. Aneja
S/o Late G.R. Aneja,
R/o M26, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi . . . . Appellant
versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
SouthWest Zone
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002.
Through its Commissioner ...... Respondent
Date of institution : 05.07.2012
Judgment Reserved on : 27.03.2014
Date of pronouncement : 05.06.2014
RCA No. 32/2012
U/s. 347 (D) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,
1957
Unique ID No. 02401C0307172012
Smt. Seema Dhingra,
W/o Shri Manohar Lal Dhingra,
R/o M26, First Floor, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi . . . . Appellant
versus
RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page1of14
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
SouthWest Zone
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002.
Through its Commissioner ...... Respondent
Date of institution : 10.07.2012
Judgment Reserved on : 27.03.2014
Date of pronouncement : 05.06.2014
RCA No. 33/2012
U/s. 347 (D) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,
1957
Unique ID No. 02401C0309502012
1. Smt. Hima Rani Aneja,
W/o Shri Sanjay Aneja,
R/o M26, (Back portion), First Floor,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi - 110 018.
2. Smt. Shefali Aneja
W/o Shri Sunil Aneja
R/o M26, (Front portion),
Second Floor, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi - 110 018 . . . . Appellants
versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
SouthWest Zone
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002.
Through its Commissioner ...... Respondent
RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page2of14
Date of institution : 11.07.2012
Judgment Reserved on : 27.03.2014
Date of pronouncement : 05.06.2014
JUDGMENT
This judgment shall dispose of the appeals bearing Nos. RCA 31/2012, RCA 32/2012 and RCA 33/2012 filed by Shri K.K. Aneja, Smt. Seema Dhingra and Smt. Hima Rani Aneja against the same common order dated 12.06.2012 of the Ld. Presiding Officer Appellate Tribunal MCD in appeal Nos. 596/AT/MCD/2011, whereby the said appeals under Section 347(B)(h) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 filed by the each of the appellants were dismissed.
Vide the three appeals, before the Appellate Tribunal MCD, the appellants had sought the setting aside of the order No. D 1131/EE (B)II/WZ/2011, 19.10.2011 of the Deputy Commissioner (West) Zone of the MCD whereby the sanction of the building plan of the property No. M26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi submitted vide file No. 302/B/WZ/98 dated 05.06.1998 sanctioned on 11.06.1998, was revoked and it was further detailed vide the said impugned order that the work carried out, in terms of the said sanction was without any valid sanction and that action as per provisions of law would be taken without further intimation. The records of the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD have been requisitioned in each of the three cases. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent, the MCD who has contested the appeals.
Written submissions have also been submitted on behalf RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page3of14 of the appellants by the Ld. counsel Shri Praveen Suri. On behalf of the respondent it has been submitted that the impugned judgment of the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD detailed set forth all reasons and sufficed to reject the three appeals.
Vide the order dated 19.10.2011 of the Deputy Commissioner MCD it had been spelt out that on the basis of documents and statements a plan was sanctioned for construction, addition/alteration at the Ground Floor and addition of First Floor and Second Floor on Plot No. M26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi for residential use, which application was entertained by the MCD on the basis of documents, statements and plans furnished by the owner/architect and the sanction was issued on 20.07.1998 in the name of Shri Kishan Lal Madan and that complaints from various quarters were received in the office of the MCD mentioning that the plan was got sanctioned fraudulently by forging the signatures of the deceased Shri Kishan Madan, who expired on 28.02.1992, and that it was apparent that the building plan in respect of property No. M 26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi was got sanctioned fraudulently by someone making forged signatures of the applicant i.e. Shri Kishan Lal Madan who had already expired on 28.10.1992 and that thus a show cause notice bearing No. D1131/EE (B)II/WZ/2011 dated 07.04.2011 was issued to all owners/occupiers i.e. Shri Kapil Madan, Smt. Kamla Madan, Smt. Arpita Madan, Shri K.K. Aneja and Shri Anil Sharma, Architect. However it was further detailed in the said order under Section 338 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 dated 09.10.2011 that out of the said five persons, a reply was RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page4of14 received from K.K. Aneja one of the coowners and also from the architect Shri Anil Sharma and from the same it was evident that it was not spelt out as to who signed the building plan application and that Shri K.K. Aneja i.e. the appellant of RCA No. 31/2012 before the present forum admitted sanction of the building plan under misrepresentation.
Vide the impugned judgment of the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD dated 12.06.2012 and on a perusal of the reply of the appellant Shri K.K. Aneja submitted on 25.04.2011 to the MCD which was in reply to the show cause notice No. D1131/EE(B) II/WZ/2011 dated 07.04.2011 the factum of demise of Shri Kishan Lal Madan on 28.02.1992 was not denied by Shri K.K. Aneja nor was it denied that the building plan for addition, alteration in respect of Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor of the property No. M 26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi was under the purported signatures of the deceased Kishan Lal Madan. It was also mentioned in the said show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner (West) Zone that the owner/occupier of the property No. M26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi were the beneficiaries and residing in the said premises after the construction had been carried out as per the sanctioned building plan issued under misrepresentation.
A perusal of the records before the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD indicates that placed therein is the agreement to sell dated 20.05.1998 between Shri K.K. Madan S/o Shri K.K. Madan and Ms. Kamla Madan wife of Late Shri Kamla Madan with one of the appellants herein i.e. Shri K.K. Aneja whereby Shri Kapil Madan and RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page5of14 Shri K.L. Madan agreed to sell and transfer the property i.e. the entire terriace rights of Ground Floor with 100% roof / terrace thereupon out of property No. M26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi - 110018 and proportionate lease hold rights of the land under the said property to Shri K.K. Aneja. The said agreement to sell and consequential general power of attorney executed by Mr. Kapil Madan and Mrs. Kamla Madan wife of Late Shri K.L.Madan are all documents executed on 20.05.1998, after mutation of the property in the name of Kamla Madan wife of Late Shri Krishan Lal Madan and Shri Kapil Madan S/o Late Shri Krishan lal Madan and Shri Kapil Madan S/o Late Shri Krishan Lal Madan vide the conveyance deed dated 17.12.1999 executed by the DDA, which was also formulated after the mutation of Plot No. 26, Block - M, Vikas Puri residential scheme having been allowed from the name of Shri K.K. Madan to Shri Kapil Madan and Smt. Kamla Madan.
Through the present appeal the appellant Shri K.K. Aneja has submitted that the Ld. Appellate Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in giving directions to the SHO PS Vikas Puri and to the MCD authorities regarding payment of costs imposed vide the impugned judgment dated 12.06.2012 and the report from the SHO PS Vikas Puri and from the Deputy Commissioner about taking necessary steps in respect of architect in the office for the website of the MCD.
It has interalia been submitted on behalf of the appellant that there were certain disputes and differences with Shri Harish Kumar Alag and Shri Kapil Madan and Smt. Kamla Madan. It has RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page6of14 further been submitted by the appellant that the appellant Shri K.K. Aneja and Shri Harish Kumar purchased the entire terrace of the Ground Floor with 100% rights in property No. M26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi - 110 018 vide an agreement dated 20.05.1998 from Shri Kapil Madan and Smt. Kamla Madan and were the owners thereafter and as the matter and that thereafter the seller handed over the sanction plan to the appellant and the construction was raised in respect of the back portion of the ground floor and upper floors.
Interalia the appellant Shri K.K. Aneja submitted that the first floor portion was sold to Smt. Seema Dhingra (appellant of RCA No. 31/2012) and the back portion to Smt. Hima Rani Aneja, (appellant of RCA No. 33/2012) and that certain disputes arose with Shri Harish Kumar Alag and Shri Kapil Madan and Smt. Kamla Madan in relation to which there were Civil suits pending and the property was converted from lease hold to free hold of Smt. Kamla Madan and Shri Kapil Madan and the Conveyance Deed was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar on 17.12.1999 whereafter suddenly the appellant received a show cause notice under Section 338 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as to why the building plan should not be revoked which was replied to by the appellant.
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that in terms of Section 347(C) the Appellate Tribunal has powers for summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath, requiring the discovery and inspection of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits, requisitioning of public records or RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page7of14 copies thereof from any Court or office issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents and that the same does not take within its purview any discretion with the Ld. Appellate Tribunal to issue directions for investigating or to proceed in a particular manner to any other authority other than the municipal officers and it was thus sought that the observations of the Ld. Trial Court to the effect "Registrar is directed to send the letter to SHO, Vikas Puri to complete the investigation of the criminal matter on the basis of letter of MCD dated 20.05.2011 bearing No. D218(EE(B)WZ./2010 and submit status report of the investigation", be set aside.
Interalia it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the costs imposed of `20,000/ and `5,000/ vide the impugned judgment of the Ld. PO Appellate Tribunal MCD were erroneous and that the said costs were levied on the appellant without any findings as to who had signed the sanctioned plan.
The appellant has further submitted that the construction was raised by the appellant only on the basis of the previous owners of the premises having raised additional construction. It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellant Shri K.K. Aneja that the plans in the instant case were sanctioned in 1998 and thereafter a full fledged building was constructed.
Interalia it was submitted by the appellant that the wife and son of the deceased owner Shri Madan Lal had started making complaints to derive illegal profits and extort money and that it was RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page8of14 the duty of the municipal officers at the time of sanction of the plan to make due inquiry and that initiation of action after 12 years after the sanction of the plan was wholly illegal.
Through the appeal interalia the appellant has submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to pay the regularization charges if the building constructed was regularized and that the appellant undertakes to demolish such portions of the building which cannot be regularized as per the building plan.
ANALYSIS On a consideration of the entire available record the observations of the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD to the effect that in the instant case the building plan had been obtained in the name of a dead person on forging his signatures, despite demise of Shri Kishan Lal Madan the original owner who expired on 28.02.1992 and the building plan was sanctioned on 20.07.1998 in the name of Kishan Lal Madan vide file No. 302/B/WZ/98 dated 05.06.1998 by the Zonal DPC dated 11.06.1998 that with the sanction having been issued on 20.07.1998, it is apparent that the said building plan for construction/addition/alteration of the ground floor and addition of first floor and second floor on Plot No. M26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi was done on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi with the application for the same having been filed in the name of a dead person and that thus the RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page9of14 sanction accorded for such construction, addition and alteration has essentially to be revoked.
In view thereof the appeal RCA No. 31/2012 is dismissed and in view thereof of the order dated 11.07.2012 of the Ld. Predecessor Court at the time of the admission of the appeal RCA No.31/2013 is vacated.
Vide the impugned judgment the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD has held that the appeals filed by Seema Dhingra (appeal No. 590/2011 before the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD) and Hima Rani Aneja and Smt. Shefali Aneja with appeal No. 583/2011 filed before the Appellate Tribunal by Smt. Hima Rani and Smt. Shefali Aneja who allegedly purchased back portion of the first floor and front floor of the second floor of the property through Shri K.K. Aneja by a registered sale deed and by Smt. Seema Dhingra who purchased the front portion of the first floor from Shri K.K. Aneja by way of a sale deed, were dismissed holding observing to the effect that Smt. Hima Rani Aneja and Smt. Shefali Aneja were the daughters in law of Shri K.K. Aneja i.e. the appellant of RCA No. 31/2013 before this forum and that they were living jointly with him in the same property as per addresses given in the appeal and that Smt. Seema Dhingra was also a daughter of Shri K.K. Aneja and that they were all living earlier together in house No. 8/33 Tilak Nagar, Delhi at the time of the execution of the sale deeds and after that shifted to the property where Shri K.K. Aneja were residing and that the appellants had deliberately not disclosed their relations with each other through the appeals before the ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD.
RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page10of14 Interalia it had been observed by the Ld. PO Appellate Tribunal MCD that the appellants had not disclosed that there relations with their father/fatherinlaw were estranged or that he had not told them about the details and particulars of the proceedings going on before the quasi judicial authority against him in relation to the cancellation of the building plan.
Interalia the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD vide the impugned order held that through the appeals filed by Smt. Hima Rani Aneja and Smt. Shefali Aneja and Smt. Seema Dhingra, they were clearly stepping into the shoes of the appellant Shri K.K. Aneja and that there was no thus requirement of issuance of a separate show cause notice to them by the respondent. It was further observed by the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD that Smt. Hima Rani Aneja and Smt. Seema Dhingra had got the first floor regularized in the year 2008 under the self assessment scheme by depositing regularization fees as per receipt placed on record which indicated that while they were getting the first floor regularized they would have produced copy of the sanctioned building plan during the year 1998 before the MCD and that they had thus derived benefit of the illegal building plan and could not take a contrary view that they had no knowledge about the facts of obtaining of a sanctioned plan in the name of the deceased through false facts and consealment. It was thus observed by the Ld. Appellate Tribunal that no notice was required to be issued by the MCD to the said appellants Hima Rani Aneja, Shefali Aneja and Smt. Seema Dhingra before passing the impugned order and thus their appeals were dismissed with costs of RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page11of14 Rs. 5,000/ each.
Through the submissions that have been made on behalf of the said appellants it has been submitted that there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the appellants have not been given any chance to explain their stand.
As regards the appeal No. RCA 32/2012, as the appellant Smt. Seema Dhingra is the registered coowner of property No. M26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi vide registered sale deed document No. 23332, Additional Book No. 1, Volume No. 12031 pages 44 to 56 dated 11.10.2004 registered with the Sub Registrar, Janak Puri, New Delhi, and as the appellants Hima Rani Aneja and Smt. Shefali Aneja i.e. the appellants of the appeal RCA No. 33/2012 are the owners of the back portion of the first floor having covered area of 1184 square fit without roof rights i.e. one half portion of the entire first floor forming portion property No. M26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi with proportionate undivided free hold land measuring 320 square meters vide registered sale deed dated 11.10.2004 i.e. registered with the Sub Registrar's office Janak Puri, New Delhi vide document No. 23331 in additional Book No. 1, Volume No. 12031 and the appellant No. 2 of RCA No. 33/2012 is the registered owner of the front portion of the second floor having covered area of 1184 square fit without roof rights i.e. one half portion of entire second floor forming portion M26 Vikas Puri, New Delhi, in view of registered sale deed dated 11.10.2004 duly registered with the office of the Sub Registrar Janak Puri, New Delhi on 11.10.2004 as document No. 23330 in additional Book No. 1, Volume No. 12031, coupled with the RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page12of14 factum that as observed by the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD itself, the said Smt. Seema Dhingra, Hima Rani Aneja and Shefali Aneja, the appellants had got their construction regularized in 2008 under the self assessment scheme by depositing regularization fees, which regularization could not have taken place without knowledge of the MCD authorities, and taking into account the factum that the order under Section 338 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 dated 19.10.2011 No. D1131/EE(B)II/WZ/2011, has been made without giving any reasonable opportunity to the appellants Smt. Seema Dhingra (i.e. the appellant of RCA No. 32/2013 and to the appellants Smt. Hima Rani Aneja and Smt. Shefali Aneja appellants of RCA No. 33/2012 who were the persons affected interalia apart from Shri K.K. Aneja, as to why such order should not be made, as regards Smt. Seema Dhingra and Smt. Hima Rani Aneja and Smt. Shefali Aneja, the observations of the Ld. PO Appellate Tribunal MCD to the effect that no separate show cause notice was required to be issued to them as they were related to Shri K.K. Aneja with Smt. Seema Dhingra being his daughter and Smt. Hima Rani Aneja and Smt. Shefali Aneja being his daughters in law cannot be accepted. The provisions of the proviso of Section 338 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 having not been adhered to in relation to the appellants Smt. Seema Dhingra and Smt. Hima Rani Aneja and Smt. Shefali Aneja in relation to the portions of the premises M26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi of which they were in possession as registered owners and have also been granted regularization of their existing structures, the impugned judgment dated 12.06.2012 of the Ld. RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page13of14 Presiding Officer Appellate Tribunal, MCD, in appeal Nos. 583/AT/MCD/2011 and 590/AT/MCD/2011, qua Smt. Hima Rani Aneja, Smt. Shefali Aneja and Smt. Seema Dhingra to the extent of the portions of M26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi in which they are in possession as registered owners thereof is set aside in toto. The same would not however amount to an embargo on the Delhi Municipal Corporation to proceed in accordance with law qua the portions of M26, Vikas Puri, New Delhi in possession of the appellants Smt. Seema Dhingra and Smt. Hima Rani Aneja and Smt. Shefali Aneja. The appeals RCA No. 32/2012 and RCA No. 33/2012 are thus allowed accordingly.
The records of the Ld. PO Appellate Tribunal MCD be returned and the records of RCA Nos. 31/2012, 32/2012 and 33/2012 be consigned to the Record Room.
Copy of this judgment be placed on the records of the file RCA Nos.32/2012 & 33/2012.
Announced in Open Court
today this the 05th day of ( Anu Malhotra )
June, 2014 District & Sessions Judge (West)
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
RCA No. 31/2012, RCA No. 32/2012 & RCA No. 33/2012 Page14of14