Gasta Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Shri T P Pandey & Ors.

1. The present petition impugns an order of 16.7.2013 which reads as under: “It is submitted that the personal hearings regarding the unauthorized construction are going on in DDA. DDA has filed the details regarding the unauthorized construction on 26.11.2012. Put up for Action Taken Report for removal of the unauthorized construction as mentioned in the list provided by DDA on 4.10.2013.”

2. The respondents (plaintiffs) had filed a suit seeking a decree of declaration that the wall constructed by the petitioner, dividing bifurcating the roof/terrace of the building within the compound of the petitioner Society be declared as illegal and a decree of mandatory 2014:DHC:1726 injunction be passed for removing the same. The petitioner claims that the construction was raised pursuant to grant of due permissions by the Society and they were estopped from seeking removal of the construction since it had been raised with due authority. While the evidence was being recorded, the Trial Court sought for status report from the DDA apropos the unauthorized construction. The petitioner contends that seeking for an action taken report for removal of unauthorized construction, as mentioned in the list provided by the DDA on 4.10.2013, would be prejudging the issue and in effect would provide the final relief to the plaintiff. He says that this would cause immense prejudice and therefore the impugned order should be stayed.

3. This court is of the view that the action taken report of the DDA would be in statutory compliance of its duty in law. There was and could be no application seeking restraint against a statutory body from discharging its statutory duties.

4. Perusal of the orders shows that the Court itself had not directed the removal of unauthorized construction. It notes that personal hearings regarding unauthorized construction was going on before the DDA. Should a party be aggrieved by an order of a statutory authority, it would always have occasion to seek redressal against the same before the forum prescribed in law.

5. This petition is without any basis or merit. The impugned order does not suffer from material irregularities warranting interference by this court in its revisionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J MARCH 27, 2014