Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2108 (DEL)

SANTOSH SAPRA v. M. C. D.

2006-11-16

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2006
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) ISSUE rule. With consent of counsel for the parties the matter was heard for final disposal. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner seeks a direction for demolition of the front portion of the suit property namely F-18, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi which is under occupation of the second Respondent. He has also sought for an appropriate order directing the MCD to ensure that no unauthorized construction is carried out on the said portion. ( 3 ) BOTH the Petitioner and the Respondents No. 2 and 3 are owners of separate portions of the suit property. It is an undisputed fact that all of them have constructed upon the plot; the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in the front portion and the Petitioner in the immediate back of that property. During the course of these proceedings various orders have been issued. ( 4 ) THE MCD in its latest status report has averred that the original sanctioned building plan for the old construction was granted in 1963; thereafter the property was sub-divided. Apparently deviations and excess coverage as against the sanctioned building plan were noticed on 6. 2. 2006. MCD accordingly initiated action under Sections 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation act, booked the deviations/excess coverage on the same date and issued a show cause notice. A demolition order was issued on 1. 3. 2006. It is claimed that on 23. 3. 2006 MCD demolished a wall and roof of extended room and a bathroom in side setback at ground floor and also demolished the extended bathroom in side setback on the first floor. It is further claimed that on 27. 4. 2006 further action by way of demolition of the shuttering erected for repair of Chajja was taken. In addition the slab on the open portion was also cut and the walls covering the open portion were punctured. ( 5 ) THE latest affidavit/status report states that property was re-inspected on 28. 8. 2006 and as per the inspection, the total constructed areas on the different floors have been indicated. Counsel for the MCD stated that after giving allowance to areas which can be compounded in accordance with the rules, regulations and guidelines and non-compoundable areas/excess area of canopy is 108 sq. ft. The counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 3 states that the portions have been demolished. Counsel for the MCD stated that after giving allowance to areas which can be compounded in accordance with the rules, regulations and guidelines and non-compoundable areas/excess area of canopy is 108 sq. ft. The counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 3 states that the portions have been demolished. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the various annexures including the sanctioned plan and stated that certain areas which were to be kept open as family lounge and as varandah, were covered. He also sought to rely upon the plans as well as photographs. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted that if the MCD determines any area to be unauthorized and beyond compoundable limits, suitable action would be voluntarily undertaken and appropriate undertaking would also be furnished. He further alleged that the Petitioner is guilty of violation of law and has carried out construction which is not in conformity with the guidelines and building bye-laws. ( 7 ) IN view of the above submissions the following directions are issued :-1) The MCD will inspect entire premises and indicate to the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 clearly as to what deviations exist that cannot be compounded and which have to be removed. A time frame of not more than eight weeks shall given for the purpose. 2) The Respondents No. 2 and 3 shall furnish an undertaking to voluntarily remove the objectionable portions which are unauthorized as per the determination of the MCD and in the event of their failure to comply with the directions of the undertaking within eight weeks, agreeing to demolition action by the MCD. 3) The MCD shall take action in respect of all the unauthorized portions which are beyond the compoundable limits and contrary to the sanctioned building plans and the building bye-laws in regard to the entire suit property i. e. F-18, rajouri Garden, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms.