Delhi District Court
Sh. Bhupendera Kumar Verma vs Dr. R.B. Nain on 18 May, 2011
Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA, JSCC-CUM-
ASCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE (WEST): DELHI
Suit No. 2572/08
Unique Case ID No. 02401C5364702004
Sh. Bhupendera Kumar Verma
S/o Late Hari Chand Verma,
R/o Flat No. 47, Ground Floor,
Priyadarshni Apartments,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi. ......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Dr. R.B. Nain
S/o Late Sh. M.S. Nain
R/o Flat no. 48, First Floor,
Priyadarshni Apartments,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi.
2. The Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice Chairman
I.N.A. Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi
3. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Through its Commissioner
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006.
4. The President,
(The Delhi University Non-Academic Employees Co-
Operative Group Housing Society Ltd.)
Priyadarshni Apartments,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi. .....Defendants
Date of filing of the suit : 01.04.2004
Date of reserving order : 30.04.2011
Date of pronouncement : 18.05.2011
JUDGMENT
Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 1/18
Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
1. In the present suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, the plaintiff is seeking interalia, a direction to the defendant no.1 to remove the illegal construction over the Flat no. 48, Priyadarshni Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (Hereinafter 'the suit property') and to cause repairs of the damage caused to the Flat no.47, Priyadarshani Apartment, New Delhi restore the said flat to its original condition and further, a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from raising any unauthorized construction in the suit property.
2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff is the owner of the Flat no. 47, Priyadarshani Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi vide title documents dated 10.05.1999 and 23.07.1999. The plaintiff is residing in the said flat along with his family members. The defendant is residing on the first floor over the flat of the plaintiff. It is stated that the flats constructed in the said apartment comprises ground floor and first floor. It is stated that second floor was not allowed by the DDA as the foundation of the flats is only 3 feet deep and it can only bear the burden of construction up to first floor.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no. 1 has constructed two rooms measuring 11'x10' each and toilet on the terrace of the suit property without sanctioned plan and raised height of mumty of the stair case in the month of August/September, 2003. The plaintiff vide notice dated 14.10.2003 asked the defendant no.1 to remove the said construction which was returned with remarks 'un-claimed'. The plaintiff made a complaint to the Director (Building), DDA on 07.10.2003 and several authorities. The plaintiff's wife lodged a report with P.S. Paschim Vihar on 03.01.2004.
Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 2/18Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
4. Grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants had not taken any action. It is stated that the walls/ceiling and floor of the plaintiff's flat developed serious cracks due to the said illegal construction. It is stated that the foundation of the said flat cannot bear the extra load placed thereupon. The unauthorized construction is causing extensive leakage thereby rendered the plaintiff's flat un-inhabitable and unhygienic. The plaintiff had given a reminder to the defendant no. 3 on 13.01.2004 with copies thereof to several authorities. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the defendant no. 1 and inaction of the defendant no. 2 to 4, the plaintiff filed this suit for permanent and mandatory injunction.
5. In the written statement, the defendant no. 1 stated that the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court. It is stated that the plaintiff has encroached the land of the society on the front and rear side of Flat no. 47, Ground Floor, Priyadarshni Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and raised illegal construction thereupon in the form of rooms and walls up to the height of 5 feet. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 had constructed the said two rooms with the knowledge and consent of the society in 1996 and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. It is stated that the said construction on the second floor has been assessed to house tax with effect from 01.04.1999. It is stated that 95% flat owners of the society have raised construction on the second floor with the consent and knowledge of the society. It is stated that the land belongs to the society and the construction within the limits of the flats can be regularized and the defendant no. 1 is willing to pay regularization charges.
Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 3/18Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
6. The defendant no.1 has admitted that most of the flats of the society are two storeyed and some of the flats are duplex type having three storeyed with the ground floor. The defendant no.1 denied that that unauthorized construction was raised in the month of August and September, 2003. It is stated that the structures are very strong and can withstand another two floors above the existing structure. It is stated that 95% flat owners of the society have added additional rooms on the second floor of their flats. It is stated that the plaintiff has no locus to seek demolition of any portion of the suit property. It is stated that he had raised construction with the knowledge of the DDA and the society had taken up the matter with the DDA for regularization thereof. It is stated that the plaintiff in collusion with Sh. S. N. Mathur, a resident of Flat no. 45 have encroached the society's land and raised illegal construction thereupon. It is stated that the defendant no.1 had stopped the Sh. S. N. Mathur from raising illegal construction on the ground floor of his flat and therefore, the present suit has been filed against the defendant no.1 so as to curb his voice. The plaintiff has carried out structural changes in the basic structure of his flat which has caused cracks in his flat. It is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.
7. In its written statement, the defendant no. 2/DDA stated that the Building Plans were approved in respect of ground floor and first floor and any floor constructed over the first floor is unauthorized. The construction beyond sanctioned building plan is unauthorized and liable for action under Section 30 (1) and 31 (a) of the Delhi Development Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 4/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
Act, 1957 (Hereinafter 'the DD Act') which is under process.
8. In its written statement, the defendant no. 3/MCD raised preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable for want of service of statutory notice under Section 477 and 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Hereinafter referred as ' the DMC Act'). It is stated that the defendant no. 3/MCD has initiated appropriate action against the unauthorized construction in the suit property. It is stated that the MCD had booked the unauthorized construction in the form of two rooms at the second floor of the suit property under Section 343 and 344 of the DMC Act vide File no.B/UC/WZ/04/427 dated 31.05.2004. It is stated that further action will be taken in accordance with law.
9. According to the defendant no.3/MCD, the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. It is stated that the plaintiff has raised unauthorized construction in his Flat no. 47, Priyadarshani Apartments, New Delhi by covering open courtyard and converting it into a room. It is stated that the plaintiff has also encroached the municipal land.
10. In its written statement, the defendant no. 4/the Society stated that the defendant no. 1 has unauthorized-ly constructed two rooms and a toilet on the common terrace and defaced the mumty in the stair case. It is stated that the defendant no. 4/Society has not given any sanction for raising unauthorized construction in the suit property. It is stated that all the residents were notified time and again against the illegal construction.
11. In the replication, the plaintiff controverted the contentions raised in the written statement of the Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 5/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
defendants and re-affirmed the averments made in the plaint.
12. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 06.01.2005.
1. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed material facts? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 477/478 of DMC Act? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
6. Relief.
13. In the evidence, the plaintiff (PW-1) and the defendant no. 1 (DW-1) appeared in support of their respective case and the defendant no. 2/DDA examined an official as D2W1.
14. The plaintiff and the defendant no.1 filed their examination-in-chief way of affidavit. Copy of Agreement to Sell dated 10.05.1990, Special Power of Attorney dated 23.07.1999 Ex.PW-1/2 and General power of Attorney dated 23.07.1999 Ex.PW-1/3 in respect of the flat no. 47, Ground Floor, Priyadarshani Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/6 are the photographs of the unauthorized construction. Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/15 are the photographs of the plaintiff's flat. PW-1 proved the notice dated 14.10.2003 Ex. PW1/18 and postal Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 6/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
receipt thereof are Ex. PW1/16 and PW1/17, returned envelop is Ex. PW1/19.
15. I have heard arguments of Sh. S.C. Arora, Adv. for the plaintiff, Sh. J. H. Jafri, Adv. for the defendant no. 1 and Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. for the defendant no.2/DDA and considered the written arguments of the defendant no. 1.
16. On careful consideration of the evidence on record, issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1:
17. Onus to prove the issue no. 1 was upon the defendant no.1. The defendant in his written statement contended that the plaintiff has encroached upon the Society's land and raised illegal construction thereupon. The defendant no.3 has stated to this effect in its written statement.
18. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 argued that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the fact that he has encroached upon the society land and raised illegal construction thereupon. He argued that such a person cannot seek equitable and discretionary relief of permanent and mandatory injunction. He argued that the plaintiff had demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant no.1 and the present suit was filed in order to blackmail the plaintiff. He argued that 95% flat owners have added second floor over the first floor of their flats. He argued that fire tender cannot freely move the event of any disaster in the society in due to horizontal encroachment and unauthorized construction. He argued that the Court must adopt uniform approach and unauthorized construction Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 7/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
raised by the plaintiff and other flat owners should be subjected to appropriate action.
19. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant no. 1 has already filed a suit against the plaintiff which is pending adjudication before this Court. He argued that the scope of the present suit is confined to the illegal construction over the terrace of the flat no. 48, Priyadarshani Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. He argued that the plaintiff had approached the Court after availing of the remedies under the law. He argued that the defendant no. 2 to 4 had not taken any action on the complaints of the plaintiff and therefore, he had approached the Court for redressal of his grievances.
20. No one can be allowed to raise unauthorized construction on the ground that the other person has also raised unauthorized construction in his property. There can be equality in observance of laws but not in violation of laws. The plaintiff, if aggrieved, by the unauthorized construction of encroachment over the Society's land, he is entitled to seek appropriate remedy under the law. The plaintiff (PW-1) has admitted in his cross-examination that he has raised small portion in his premises and extended small portion in his compound. The MCD has also stated that the plaintiff has encroached upon the society land and raised unauthorized construction thereon. The suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has raised unauthorized construction in his property. The plaintiff cannot be prevented from approaching the court on this ground. It is the statutory duty of the MCD and DDA to take appropriate action against the encroachment and unauthorized construction made by the Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 8/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
flat owners of the society.
21. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1.
ISSUE NO.2
22. Onus to prove the issue no. 2 is upon the defendant no.
1. The defendant no. 1 in his written statement contended that the plaintiff has no locus to seek demolition of the unauthorized construction in the suit property.
23. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 argued that the plaintiff is not the owner of the Flat no.47, Priyadarshani Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. He argued that the said flat was not allotted to the plaintiff. He argued that the said flat is not mutated in the record of the DDA in the plaintiff's name and therefore, the plaintiff has no locus- standi to file the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
24. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the original allottee vide Agreement to Sell dated 10.05.1990 Ex. PW1/1, Special Power of Attorney dated 23.07.1999 Ex. PW1/2 and General Power of Attorney dated 23.07.1999 Ex. PW1/3. He argued that the plaintiff and his family members are residing in the said flat. He argued that the plaintiff's property suffered cracks due to illegal construction in the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff has locus to maintain the present suit.
25. It is admitted case of the defendant no. 1 that the plaintiff is in occupation of the flat no. 47, Priyadarshani Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 9/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The defendant no.1 has admitted in para no.1 of the reply on merits of the written statement that the plaintiff is in occupation of the flat no.47. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff is residing in the said flat along with his family members.
26. The suit property is situated at the first floor above the plaintiff's flat. The plaintiff is directly affected by unauthorized construction in the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the present suit. The plaintiff has the locus-standi to file the suit against the defendant in respect of unauthorized construction raised by him in the suit property.
27. Accordingly, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1.
ISSUE NO.3:
28. Onus to prove issue no. 3 was upon the defendant no.3/ MCD. The defendant no.3/MCD in its written statement contended that the suit is barred under Section 477/478 of the DMC Act for want of statutory notice.
29. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.3/MCD has not addressed his arguments on this issue. Moreover, the defendant no.3/MCD in its written statement stated that the unauthorized construction in the suit property was booked on 31.05.2004. The defendant no.3/MCD stated that further action will be taken in due course of time. The MCD has not taken any action in respect of unauthorized construction in the suit property. The defendant no.3/DDA stated in its written statement stated that action under Section 30 (i) and Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 10/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
Section 31-A of the DDA Act. The MCD and DDA have not taken any action despite knowledge of the unauthorized construction in the suit property. The plaintiff is residing in the flat just below the suit property. The plaintiff is directed affected by the said construction. Delay in filing of the suit would have defeated the purpose of the suit.
30. Inaction of the DDA and the MCD is evident from the fact that they have not taken any action despite booking of the unauthorized construction and encroachment in the society particularly in the suit property and plaintiff's flat. The suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable to direct the DDA and MCD to enforce the rule of law. Under Section 478 (2) of the DMC Act, a suit where the only relief prayed for is the injunction is saved from the operation of Section 478 (1) of the DMC Act and therefore, the suit is maintainable in the absence of notice under Section 478 of the DMC Act.
31. Accordingly, the issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 3/MCD.
ISSUE NO.4
32. Onus to prove the issue no.4 is upon the plaintiff.
33. In his depositions, the plaintiff has categorically deposed that the defendant no. 1 raised unauthorized construction in the form of two rooms and toilet over the terrace of the suit property and raised height of the mumty in the month of August and September, 2003. The plaintiff had sent a notice dated 14.10.2003 Ex.PW-1/18 to the defendant no.1. The plaintiff had lodged a complaint with the DDA on 07.10.2003. The defendant no.1 in his cross-
Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 11/18Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
examination admitted that he the notice Ex.PW-1/18 was served upon him. The defendant no.1 admitted that the plaintiff had lodged a complaint dated 07.10.2003 against him. The plaintiff has filed photographs of the illegal construction Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/6 in the suit property. The defendant no.1 admitted the unauthorized construction shown in Ex.PW-1/4 and Ex.PW-1/6.
34. The defendant no.1 has admitted that he had never obtained any sanction or approval from the MCD or the DDA for raising the construction as shown in the said photographs. The plaintiff is residing along with his family on the ground floor of the suit property. The defendant no. 1 has no right to carry out unauthorized construction in the suit property. The plaintiff's property is directly affected by the unauthorized construction in the suit property. Denial of injunction would cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction.
35. Accordingly, issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.5:
36. Onus to prove the issue no.5 is upon the plaintiff.
37. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant no.1 has constructed two rooms and a toilet over the suit property and raised height of the mumty of the stair case without sanctioned plan. He argued that the defendant no.1 has added additional load over the load bearing walls of the structure. He argued that the foundation of the suit property Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 12/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
is only 3 feet and it cannot bear extra load. He argued that the plaintiff is residing on the ground floor and the unauthorized construction over the second floor of the suit property has caused cracks in the plaintiff's flat. He argued that the defendant no.1 failed to restore the suit property despite service of notice dated 14.10.2003 Ex.PW-1/18. He argued that MCD and DDA have not taken any action.
38. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further argued that the defendant no.2 and 3 failed to take any action despite service of notice dated 07.10.2003 Ex.PW-1/22. He argued that the defendant no.1 has no right to raise unauthorized construction in the suit property and therefore, the construction in the suit property without sanctioned plan is liable to be removed.
39. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 argued that the plaintiff filed the present suit to blackmail the defendant no.
1. He argued that the plaintiff has raised unauthorized construction in his property on encroached land. He argued that 95% flat owners of the society have added an additional floor over their first floor and encroached upon the society land. He argued that the plaintiff has encroached the society land horizontally whereas the defendant no.1 has raised vertical construction which is permissible and compoundable. He argued that the suit is barred by latches, inordinate delay and acquiescence. He argued that the defendant no.1 had raised the said construction in the year 1996 and it is assessed to house tax since 01.04.1999. He argued that the Assessor and Collector vide order dated 01.04.1999 had enhanced the rateable value after the said construction on the terrace. He argued that the plaintiff had maintained Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 13/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
silence till 2004 and therefore, he is not entitled to relief of mandatory injunction. He argued that the plaintiff had constructed the two rooms on the terrace in the year 1996 with the consent and knowledge of the society. He argued that the said construction is within the limits of the flat and liable to be regularized. He argued that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
40. The plaintiff (PW-1) has deposed that the flats of the society consist of the ground floor and first floor. He deposed that the DDA had not allowed the second floor. He deposed that the defendant no. 1 has constructed two rooms 11' x 10' each and a toilet over the terrace of the first floor of the suit property without obtaining sanctioned plan from the MCD and raised height of the mumty of the stair case in August and September, 2003. He proved photographs Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/6 of the unauthorized construction over the suit property. He had sent a notice dated 14.10.2003 Ex.PW-1/18 to the defendant no.1. He had made a complaint dated 07.10.2003 Ex.PW-1/22 to the DDA and the MCD. He deposed that the defendant no.1 had not removed the said construction despite service of notice Ex.PW-1/18 and Ex.PW-1/22. He deposed that the DDA and the MCD had not taken any action. The depositions of the plaintiff remained unchallenged and un-assailed.
41. The defendant no.1 (DW-1) in his cross-examination admitted that he is the original allottee. He admitted that the society had allotted him first floor of the suit property. He stated that duplex flats in the society are from flat no.1 to
44. He admitted the construction over and above the first floor of the suit property as shown in the photograph Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 14/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
Ex.PW-1/4. He admitted that the construction shown in Ex.PW-1/6 is pucca one and there is a lantern placed on the roof of the room shown in the photograph. He admitted that there are two rooms, bathroom and toilet on the second floor of the suit property. He admitted that he had never obtained any sanctioned plan from the MCD or the DDA for the construction shown in the said photograph Ex.PW-1/6.
42. The defendant no.1 (DW-1) in his cross-examination admitted that the plaintiff had lodged a complaint against him on 07.10.2003. He admitted that the plaintiff had served the notice Ex.PW-1/18 on him. He stated that he had not replied the said notice. He admitted that the DDA had booked the unauthorized construction. He admitted that the unauthorized construction was not regularized by the DDA.
43. It is therefore, apparent that the defendant no.1 has constructed two rooms and a toilet on the second floor of the suit property without sanctioned plan.
44. In so far as contention of the defendant no.1 that he had raised the said construction in the year 1996 is concerned, it can be stated that the defendant no.1 has not led any evidence in support of his case. It is evident from the photographs Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/6 that the construction was fresh and undertaken at the time of the filing of the suit. Therefore, plea of the defendant no.1 that the suit is barred by delay, latches and acquiescence cannot be accepted.
45. In so far as contention that the defendant no.1 had raised the said construction with the consent and knowledge of the Society in the year 1996, it can be stated that the defendant no. 1 has not examined any witness from the Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 15/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
Society to prove that the Society had consented to the unauthorized construction of the said two rooms. In his cross- examination, he stated that the consent was verbal. Moreover, Society cannot be permitted to give consent to unauthorized construction by any of its members. The defendant no.1 has not led any evidence that the second floor of the suit property was subjected to assessment of house tax.
46. The plaintiff has not led any evidence that the said unauthorized construction caused cracks in his property.
47. In so far as contention that the said construction can be regularized on payment of regularization charges is concerned, it can be stated that the defendant no.1 has stated that the unauthorized construction has not been regularized. The defendant no. 1 has not examined any witness to prove that the said construction can be regularized. DW-1 has admitted that the DDA has booked the unauthorized construction raised by him.
48. In so far as contention that 95% flat owners of the society have added second floor to their flats and encroached upon the society land is concerned, it can be stated that the principle of first come and first serve is not applicable to the removal of unauthorized construction. There can not be equality in violation of laws. However, the defendant no.1 cannot be discriminated in so far as action against the unauthorized construction and encroachment in the society is concerned. The plaintiff has admitted that he has extended small portion in his courtyard and constructed small portion in his premises. The DDA and the MCD must ensure that the violators are subjected to equal action.
Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 16/18Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
49. It is therefore, evident that the DDA and MCD had not taken any action against the unauthorized construction in the suit property despite notice dated 07.10.2003 Ex.PW-1/22. The defendant no.1 had not removed the unauthorized construction despite receiving Ex.PW-1/18 and Ex.PW-1/22. The DDA and the MCD had booked the unauthorized construction but failed to take appropriate action.
50. Therefore, this Court can issue a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant no. 2 and 3 to perform their statutory duties and to remove the unauthorized construction in the suit property. Accordingly, issue no. 5 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
RELIEF:
51. In view of the finding on the issue no.4 and 5, the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction is decreed.
52. The defendant no. 1 is hereby directed to remove the unauthorized construction in the form of two rooms measuring 11'x 10' and a toilet over the terrace of the Flat no. 48, A-4 Priyadarshni Apartment, Paschim Vihar, Delhi within 4 weeks from the date of the decree. In the event of default, the defendant no. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to remove the unauthorized construction from the terrace of the flat no. 48, Priyadarshni Apartment, Paschim Vihar, Delhi within four weeks thereafter and submit report to the Court accordingly. Copy of this judgment be sent to the DDA and the MCD with the direction to submit the action taken report.
53. The plaintiff is restrained from raising any construction Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 17/18 Bhupendera Kumar Verma v. Dr. R. B. Nain v.
Ors.
in, and above the Flat no.48, A - 4, Priyadarshni Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi without sanctioned plan.
54. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the Open Court today the 18th May, 2011.
(SANJAY SHARMA) JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum Guardian Judge (West), Delhi Suit No. 2572/08 Page No. 18/18