Petition is disposed of with liberty to respondent to approach AT-MCD in accordance with law : High Court of Delhi
Petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent-Corporation to demolish the alleged unauthorized structure raised by respondent no. 2 and 3 and was held by the High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA  in the case of VINEETA SINGH VERMA vs. SDMC &amp; ORS (W.P.(C) 12376/2021) on 09 th March, 2022. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent-Corporation to demolish the alleged unauthorized structure raised by respondent no. 2 and 3 in respect of the first floor Flat No. 6/6213, Sector-C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and Flat No. C-6215, Sector-C, Pocket-VI, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that the construction is unauthorized, same has been booked and even a demolition order passed. And submits that a regularization application was filed by respondent no. 2, however the same has already been rejected on the ground that the major portion of the unauthorized construction is not capable to regularization as per the building bye-laws. Learned counsel submits that the demolition action has been proposed for 14th and 15th March, 2022 against the unauthorized construction carried out by respondent no. 2 and 3 and said respondents are in Canada and they are likely to come to India on 14.03.2022. He prays that the demolition action be deferred for a period of 10 days to enable the said respondents to approach the Appellate Tribunal-MCD against the order of demolition and also the order of rejection for regularization application. Learned counsel submits that the application for regularization has been wrongly rejected and further the construction is protection under the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006.This is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that the respondent-Corporation has already initiated action against the unauthorized construction, this petition is disposed of with liberty to respondent no. 2 and 3 to approach the AT-MCD in accordance with law. The Court opined that the Corporation shall defer the demolition action for a period of two weeks from today to enable the respondent no. 2 and 3 to avail of their remedy before AT-MCD. It is clarified that this protection shall be available to the said respondents for a period of two weeks or listing of the appeal whichever is earlier. It is further clarified that AT-MCD shall consider the appeal, if any, filed in accordance with law without being influenced by anything stated in this order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 09th March 2022 W.P.(C) 12376 2021 VINEETA SINGH VERMA Petitioner SDMC & ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratyush Sharma Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Mittal Standing Counsel with Ms. Yamini Mittal and Mr. Ajay Harshana Advocates for SDMC R 1 Ms. Archana Sahadeva Advocate for R 2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA J CM APPL. 11854 2022 Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the parties. For the reasons stated in the application the application is allowed. Petition is taken up today for consideration. The next date 23.03.2022 is cancelled. W.P.(C) 12376 2021 Petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent Corporation W.P.(C) 12376 2021 to demolish the alleged unauthorized structure raised by respondent no. 2 and 3 in respect of the first floor Flat No. 6 6213 Sector C Vasant Kunj New Delhi and Flat No. C 6215 Sector C Pocket VI Vasant Kunj New Delhi. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the construction is unauthorized same has been booked and even a demolition order passed. Learned counsel further submits that a application was filed by respondent no. 2 however the same has already been rejected. He submits that the same has been rejected on the ground that the major portion of the unauthorized construction is not regularizable as per the building bye laws. Learned counsel submits that the remedy of the respondent no. 2 and 3 if any against the action taken by the Corporation is before the Appellate Tribunal MCD. Learned counsel submits that the demolition action has been proposed for 14th and 15th March 2022 against the unauthorized construction carried out by respondent no. 2 and 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 submits that W.P.(C) 12376 2021 14.03.2022. said respondents are in Canada and they are likely to come to India on Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 prays that the demolition action be deferred for a period of 10 days to enable the said respondents to approach the Appellate Tribunal MCD against the order of demolition and also the order of rejection for regularization application. Learned counsel submits that the application for regularization has been wrongly rejected and further the construction is protection under the Delhi LawsAct 2006.This is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 10. Keeping in view the fact that the respondent Corporation has already initiated action against the unauthorized construction this petition is disposed of with liberty to respondent no. 2 and 3 to approach the AT MCD in accordance with law. It is directed that the Corporation shall defer the demolition action for a period of two weeks from today to enable the respondent no. 2 and 3 to avail of their remedy before AT MCD. It is clarified that this protection shall be available to the said respondents for a period of two weeks or listing of the appeal W.P.(C) 12376 2021 whichever is earlier. Continuation of interim protection thereafter shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the AT MCD. It is further clarified that AT MCD shall consider the appeal if any filed in accordance with law without being influenced by anything stated in this order. 14. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. MARCH 9 2022 SANJEEV SACHDEVA J W.P.(C) 12376 2021 