Delhi High Court
Amar Singh And Anr. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 28 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 95(2002)DLT869
Author: Manmohan Sarin
Bench: Manmohan Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J Rule.
1. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to perform their statutory duties. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondent No. 1 to immediately remove the unauthorised constructions allegedly raised by respondents 2 to 4 on premises bearing No. 11671, Gali No. 1 Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
(3). I have heard Mr. S.S. Gautam, counsel for the petitioners, at length, Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before me that respondents 2 to 4 have been in collusion with the staff of MCD and have carried out unauthorised construction int he said premises which is adjoining to petitioners remises No. 11672. According to him there has been flagrant violation of the bye laws. Respondents 2 to 4 have constructed the basement immediately next to the petitioner's property and have gone below the plinth level indingging. There has been severe damage caused to the petitioners premises.
(4). Counsel for the petitioners submits that MCD at the behest of Respondents 2 to 4 even issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to vacate his premises, since the same have allegedly become dangerous. Mr. Gautam submits while, respondents 2 to 4 have carried out unauthorized construction which has damaged petitioners' premises, it is the petitioners who have been issued the notice, for no fault of theirs.
(5). Mr. S.S. Gautam also assails the regularisation done by MCD of the unauthorised construction by respondents 2 to 4, on the ground that it was collusive. He submits that while the application for regularisation was made on 9.8.99, the amount had been paid on 10.8.99 by a demand draft dated 7.8.99. In other words respondents could not have known the amount to be deposited on 7.8.1999 to get the draft made. This according to him shows collusion. He submits that conditions imposed while granting regularisation have also not been complied with and misuse continues. Conditions of regularisation had been set out in the letter dated 9.9.99, inter alia calling for removal of projections as well as having only permissible dwelling units on the floors.
(6). Mr. S. Mukherjee has refuted the allegations of any collusion. He submits that MCD had duly acted in accordance with law. Respondents 2 to 4 applied for regularisation of the construction carried out. Regularisation was sanctioned and payment of Rs. 1,02,174/- was duly made. He submits that even after the regularisation, directions were given for sealing. The premises had to be desealed only after the orders of the MCD Appellate Tribunal.
(7). Mr. Deepak Khadaria appearing for respondents 2 to 4 on the other hand submitted that this was a motivated petition filed by a neighbour. He says all the unauthorised constructions have been regularised upon payment. Besides there is nothing wrong in demand draft being prepared earlier on the basis of regularisation charges, as were ascertained from the MCD officials. MCD has also filed the affidavit confirming that there was no unauthorised construction remaining after the regularisation. It has been categorically stated that the regularisation of the unauthorised construction has been done in terms of the unified bye laws and amnesty scheme. Besides the other works done were permissible repairs under Rule 6.4.1.
(8) From the foregoing discussion it is clear that the present writ petition has been filed by an aggrieved neighbour, who claims that his premises were damaged on account of the construction of basement without leaving any set back and other unauthorised construction carried out by the respondents. As regards the damage cause to the petitioner's premises, it would be open to the petitioner to seek his remedy in the civil forum, if so advised.
(9) On perusal of t, pleadings and affidavits and the documents produced on record, I am satisfied that the respondents have taken action as required in accordance with law. The unauthorised construction as per the MCD has been regularised upon payment of regularisation charges. As regards the non-compliance with the conditions of regularisation, the petitioner's averment with regard to misuse are vague and lacking in material particulars. However, as regards the projections, which are stated to be projecting on the public land, the MCD shall ensure that any such offending projections are duly demolished, if still found in existence and projecting on public land. Let status report be filed with regard to removal projections and non-compliance, if any, with the condition of the regularisation within 2 months in court.
10. Writ petition is disposed of with these directions.