Delhi High Court - Orders
Kamla Devi vs Laxmi Devi & Ors on 27 September, 2024
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 192/2023 & CM APPL. 51964/2023
KAMLA DEVI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Vibhor Tyagi, Adv.
versus
LAXMI DEVI & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajeya Singh, Adv. for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, ASC for MCD
with Mr. Aman Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Gupta, Mr. Varun Tyagi,
Ms. Akshita and Mr. Ishan
Srivastava, Advs. DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 27.09.2024
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on the question of admission.
2. The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 20.05.2023 has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the same has been affirmed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.08.2023 by the Court of ADJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Paragraph No.17 of the impugned judgment and decree reads as under:
"17. During the Course of the arguments, this Court has made specific query regarding the earlier suit for injunction filed by one Smt. Savitri Devi and the relation between the appellant and said Smt. Savitri Devi, however no clear reply has been given by the appellant. The contention of the plaintiff that since he resides in the same locality and therefore the very fact that the illegal construction has been carried in the suit This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/10/2024 at 23:12:37 property affects his legal right is not tenable, as the plaintiff has failed to show any injury being caused to his legal rights. Perusal of the plaint and judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court shows that except for the averment that the plaintiff is residing in the same locality, the plaintiff has failed to show that any of his legal right has been affected. Though defendants no.1 to 3 has admitted that the plaintiff lives in the same locality, however the plaintiffs have failed to show that his house is situated opposite to suit property and they are neighbor of the defendant no.1 to 3. Plaintiff has also failed to show that any of his legal rights are affected, thus the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit for mandatory injunction. The judgments relied upon by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case, Respondent no.5 and 6 have argued that plaintiff has no locus to file the suit as he himself is an unauthorized occupant of the Govt. Land. Respondent no.5 had argued that on inspection, no ongoing construction was found at the site."
3. This Court finds that an illegal construction ipso facto does not give any legal right to a neighbour to seek for its removal. An illegal construction always no doubt gives locus standi to local municipal authorities to seek removal of the illegal construction but a right of the neighbour only arises if the legal rights of light and air or any other legal right of a neighbour are adversely affected by the virtue of illegal construction.
4. Such an exposition of law has been considered in view of the decision passed by this Court in the case of Rajendra Motwani v. MCD1.
5. The said finding is unassailable. In view of the aforesaid, the instant appeal raises no substantial question of law.
6. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed alongwith pending applications.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 27, 2024/P 1 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11050.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/10/2024 at 23:12:37