Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. It was also submitted by the petitioner No. 17 that the only unauthorised construction which was alleged by the Land DO against the petitioner was as under:-

''i. generator room with A.C. Sheet roof of area 120 sq. ft. in the setback.
ii. car parking shed about 17' x 19'.''

8. According to the petitioner No.17, this does not fall within the meaning of unauthorised construction and even if it were to be assumed to be unauthorised, then the same could only have been demolished by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) under Section 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act of 1911. But such demolition could have been carried out only after giving a notice within six months from the date of completion of the building. No such steps had been taken within the period of six months and, now after a lapse of more than 50 years, the said construction could not be ordered to be demolished or altered and, therefore, it was submitted by the petitioner No.17, the demand of the Land DO to get the same regularised by the NDMC was neither just, nor legal, nor enforceable as the impugned structure stood regularised ipso facto after the six months period from the date of construction expired without there being any issuance of the requisite notice. In view of the fact that the NDMC had a role to play in this writ petition, the petitioner sought the impleadment of the NDMC as a party respondent and also sought the amendments to the writ petition to set forth the aforesaid facts in the original writ petition and to incorporate the same in paragraph 23 thereof. The amendment application (CM No.8850/1998) was allowed and NDMC was imp leaded as a party-respondent by an order of this Court on 20.01.2000 and notice was directed to be sent to the newly added respondent No.3 (NDMC). All the respondents have been served and they have filed their counter-affidavits. When the matter came up for arguments before me on 21.08.2003, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and2 (UoI and Land DO) sought time to answer the question as to under which provision of the leassor statute, the Land DO was entitled to charge damages. After seeking some adjournments, ultimately, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 placed before this Court the decision of a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Edward Keventors (Successors) P. Ltd v. Union of India, etc: AIR 1983 Delhi 376 to show that the Land DO was entitled to charge damages for unauthorised construction. The learned counsel also sought permission to place on record an office order dated 31.03.1976 for the same purpose. Such permission was granted by this Court and the said office order was placed on record by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 supported by an affidavit of one Mr R.P. Singh (Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Land and Development Office, Nirman Bhawn, New Delhi). The affidavit is dated 14.10.2003 and is on record.

9. The specific averments with regard to the petitioner No.17 as contained in paragraph 21 of the writ petition are that from time to time the petitioner No.17 has been made to pay sums of money to the Land DO for regularising the aforesaid alleged breaches.

The Land DO had been issuing notices for damages for unauthorised construction from time to time and had been stating in such notices that the Lesser (UoI) would be pleased to regularise the breaches temporarily up to a particular period provided the petitioner No.17 paid damages for the alleged unauthorised construction at differing rates for differing periods. One such notice is Annexure 'H-I' dated 04.03.1975 issued by the LandDO. The notice reads as under:-

13. Before I analyze this clause in the context of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be instructive to recapitulate that there are two aspects to the matter at hand. The first is the question of demolition of any alleged unauthorised construction and the second is the issue with regard to the power (or the lack of it) of the LandDO to demand payment for damages towards temporary regularisation of unauthorised construction. Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, it is an admitted position that when the alleged unauthorised construction was made (over 50 years ago), no notice within six months thereof was issued to the lessee. That being so, by virtue of Section 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, as it was then applicable, the alleged unauthorised construction could not be demolished thereafter. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Delhi Municipality v. Surjit Kaur: held as under in paragraph 6 thereof:-

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed to the following extent:-

i) the alleged unauthorised construction in respect of the lease-hold property belonging to the petitioner No.17 cannot now be demolished;
ii) the lease in respect of the petitioner No.17's lease-hold property does not provide for the imposition of any damages by LandDO for temporary regularisation of the alleged unauthorised construction;
iii) the pending demands made by the LandDO from the petitioner No.17 towards temporary regularisation of the alleged breaches are quashed and set aside.