Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.4. By a further order dated 22.3.1993 this Court noted that there was a residents' association of which there are about 250 members which was imp leaded as respondent No. 6. It was further recorded that there were as many as 440 flats and all the members were not members of the association. The association was directed to bring on record its proposals for making security arrangements in the colony.

3.5. When the matter was again listed before the Court on 4.4.1995 it was pointed out that in spite of the orders already passed by this Court, unauthorised construction was still in progress and this Court made it clear that it would be open to MCD authorities to take appropriate action in case the unauthorised construction is still being carried on. It was recorded in the said order by this Court that for the present the Court was not making any order regarding the alleged unauthorised construction which had already been completed and for that purpose a CCP No. 178/1995 had been filed bringing to the notice of the Court, that in spite of the orders, unauthorised constructions were still in progress and respondents be punished for contempt of Court on willfully violating the orders dated 29.5.1992. (However, this CCP, which had been filed by the petitioner was withdrawn on 20.1.2003 when the main matters were heard).

3.6. On 19.1.1996 this Court was, prima facie, of the view on the basis of various photographs filed on record that in various flats unauthorised construction was going on in spite of the orders passed in the writ petition and that it was not disputed by Counsel for the MCD or by Counsel for the DDA that unauthorised construction was going on. It was further pointed out that submissions were made on behalf of the DDA that necessary action for cancellation of allotment etc. had been initiated and notices had been issued and proceedings thereof were pending. It was further submitted on behalf of the DDA that demolition action in respect of the ongoing unauthorised construction was the responsibility of MCD as the area had earlier been de-notified. On behalf of the MCD it was submitted that demolition could not be proceeded with as there was resistance from the residents of the locality and also because adequate police force was not supplied. This Court, by a detailed order dated 8.3.1996 after noticing and recording the above, directed that one last chance be given to MCD to take appropriate action in respect of the unauthorised construction which was in progress after the order of restraint. This Court also directed the Commissioner of Police to render necessary assistance to MCD and recorded that this Court would have to take a serious view of the matter if the orders were not complied with or the necessary police aid was not furnished as required.

3.7. Thereafter, several orders were passed and various status reports were filed.

3.8. However, no material action was taken by the Respondents to prevent the continuance of unauthorised construction which many flat owners/residents of Basant Enclave were doing wantonly. The attention of this Court was then directed towards the encroachment on public land in the locality. This Court by its order dated 27.4.2000 directed the MCD to file an affidavit categorically stating as to whether there was any encroachment on public land in the locality and, if so, what action was proposed to be taken with respect to the same. By a further order dated 31.8.2000 this Court directed DDA and MCD to file a report with regard to the question as to whether or not the order dated 29.5.1992 has been complied with. It was further directed that in case there had been unauthorised construction in the colony in violation of sanctioned plan, a list of such properties along with the names of the owners thereof be filed so as to enable this Court to effectuate the order dated 29.5.1992.

3.11 In the order dated 6.9.2001 it is recorded that the Counsel for the MCD submitted that he would be filing an affidavit in the registry with regard to the survey of properties and action taken by the MCD pursuant to the order dated 29.3.2001 and it is further recorded that the Residents' Welfare Association would also be filing its affidavit on behalf of the Association.

3.12 On 13.9.2001 an affidavit of Shri N.K. Dube, Secretary of the Basant Enclave Welfare Association, Respondent No. 5 was filed. In this affidavit it is recorded that the deponent being the Secretary of the Association had issued a circular dated 24.3.2001 to all the residents of the area requiring them to inform whether any unauthorised construction has been made in their respective flats after 5.5.1992 and if so which of these were compoundable/non-compoundable. In the affidavit he stated that the aforesaid circular was followed with reminder dated 14.4.2001 requiring the residents to furnish the information. He had issued further circulars as response from all the flat owners had not come . He further stated that 184 residents had given the information vide their letters and that the MCD had, without waiting for any order from this Court and without any proper show cause notice, already carried out demolition in the various flats without affording opportunity to the residents. The response of the residents is stereo typed and all to the effect that they did not make any unauthorised construction in their respective flats.