Full Text
Translation output
Ty-'
$-12
% 01.08.2011
Present: Mr. Raman Gandhi,; Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R. Nanavaty, Advocate for the respondent.
+W.P.(C) No.3759/2008
*
During the course of arguments, counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court that in the sale deed dated 20"^ November, 2000 executed by Shri Sushil
Kumar in favour of Shri Dharam Pal Mittal, it is clearly mentioned that the vendor had sold half undivided share in the built up house bearing No. 1/201/1, Sadar Bazar, Delhi comprising of ground and first floor with roof rights (which includes building as well as land) Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi 110010.
In the report filed by the Local Commissioner, he informed the learned Appellate Court that the property in question comprised of ground floor, second and Mumti on terrace floor. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that the said report filed by the Local Commissioner before the Appellate Court clearly disclosed that the petitioner had constructed second floor and Mumti on the terrace floor being the new construction after execution of the said sale deed in his favour. Counsel further states that the petitioner in para 4 of the present petition has not stated the facts correctly as nowhere in the said para or in the other paras, 2011:DHC:18081
•a>.- the petitioner has disclosed thkt structure ofsecond floor and Mumti was raised by him. Counsel for the respondents further states that the petitioner stated that he had only improved upon the structure already standing since 1963 which is.clearly false and contradictory to the report filed by the Local Commissioner before the Appellate
Court. Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner can still approach the concerned authorities to seek regularization of the said unauthorized construction, if legally permissible under the provisions of the Delhi Cantonment Act and rules framed thereunder.
Mr. Raman Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the respondents are not having complete records to point out the extent of unauthorized constructions existing in the property of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the information furnished by the CPIO of
Delhi Cantonment Board in respect of the information sought by the petitioner under the RTI Act, 2005. Counsel also submits that even the petitioner is not having any such record to show that the predecessor of the petitioner had obtained sanction for construction on the said property from the Delhi Cantonment Board. Counsel also submits that it is possible that in the sale deed, the deed writer might have wrongly given the details of the structure of the said property by omitting to mention the second and Mumti therein.
Counsel also submits that the petitioner is not averse to
/i approaching the authorities again to seel< sanction of the second floor and Mumti in terms of the Building Bye-laws applicable to the said areas.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Without expressing any opinion on the legal issues raised by counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that interest of justice in the present case would be subserved if the petitioner is given the liberty to approach the respondents by filing an application seeking regularization of the (second floor and Mumti) i.e. the new construction raised by the petitioner and decision on such an application shall be taken by the respondents strictly in accordance with law.
So far the ground and first floor structures are concerned, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the said structures as the same have been duly mentioned in the sale deed dated 20'^
November, 2000.
Counsel for the respondents has taken a plea that the relevant records pertaining to the sanction of the said property of the
AW" petitioner are also not available with them and, therefore, unless the respondents from their records can show that the entire structure was totally unauthorized, the respondents will not take such a plea to reject the application of the petitioner seeking regularization of his second floor and Mumti structure in the said property.
'7
In the light of the foregoing, let the petitioner approach the respondent-authority to seek regularization of second floor and
Mumti on the terrace within a period of three weeks from the date of this order and decision on the application of the petitioner shall be taken by the respondents within a period of six weeks thereafter. In case the grievance of the petitioner is not addressed, then the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court again and, in the meanwhile, respondents shall not take any action to demolish the existing structure.
It is also directed that the respondents shall de-seal the ground and first floor of the said property within a period of three weeks from the date of this order.
With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of.
As a result of the above-mentioned directions, the impugned orders passed by the learned Estate Officer and Appellate Court shall not sustain.
August 01, 2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J vk
$-12
% 01.08.2011
Present: Mr. Raman Gandhi,; Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R. Nanavaty, Advocate for the respondent.
+W.P.(C) No.3759/2008
*
During the course of arguments, counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court that in the sale deed dated 20"^ November, 2000 executed by Shri Sushil
Kumar in favour of Shri Dharam Pal Mittal, it is clearly mentioned that the vendor had sold half undivided share in the built up house bearing No. 1/201/1, Sadar Bazar, Delhi comprising of ground and first floor with roof rights (which includes building as well as land) Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi 110010.
In the report filed by the Local Commissioner, he informed the learned Appellate Court that the property in question comprised of ground floor, second and Mumti on terrace floor. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that the said report filed by the Local Commissioner before the Appellate Court clearly disclosed that the petitioner had constructed second floor and Mumti on the terrace floor being the new construction after execution of the said sale deed in his favour. Counsel further states that the petitioner in para 4 of the present petition has not stated the facts correctly as nowhere in the said para or in the other paras, 2011:DHC:18081
•a>.- the petitioner has disclosed thkt structure ofsecond floor and Mumti was raised by him. Counsel for the respondents further states that the petitioner stated that he had only improved upon the structure already standing since 1963 which is.clearly false and contradictory to the report filed by the Local Commissioner before the Appellate
Court. Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner can still approach the concerned authorities to seek regularization of the said unauthorized construction, if legally permissible under the provisions of the Delhi Cantonment Act and rules framed thereunder.
Mr. Raman Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the respondents are not having complete records to point out the extent of unauthorized constructions existing in the property of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the information furnished by the CPIO of
Delhi Cantonment Board in respect of the information sought by the petitioner under the RTI Act, 2005. Counsel also submits that even the petitioner is not having any such record to show that the predecessor of the petitioner had obtained sanction for construction on the said property from the Delhi Cantonment Board. Counsel also submits that it is possible that in the sale deed, the deed writer might have wrongly given the details of the structure of the said property by omitting to mention the second and Mumti therein.
Counsel also submits that the petitioner is not averse to
/i approaching the authorities again to seel< sanction of the second floor and Mumti in terms of the Building Bye-laws applicable to the said areas.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Without expressing any opinion on the legal issues raised by counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that interest of justice in the present case would be subserved if the petitioner is given the liberty to approach the respondents by filing an application seeking regularization of the (second floor and Mumti) i.e. the new construction raised by the petitioner and decision on such an application shall be taken by the respondents strictly in accordance with law.
So far the ground and first floor structures are concerned, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the said structures as the same have been duly mentioned in the sale deed dated 20'^
November, 2000.
Counsel for the respondents has taken a plea that the relevant records pertaining to the sanction of the said property of the
AW" petitioner are also not available with them and, therefore, unless the respondents from their records can show that the entire structure was totally unauthorized, the respondents will not take such a plea to reject the application of the petitioner seeking regularization of his second floor and Mumti structure in the said property.
'7
In the light of the foregoing, let the petitioner approach the respondent-authority to seek regularization of second floor and
Mumti on the terrace within a period of three weeks from the date of this order and decision on the application of the petitioner shall be taken by the respondents within a period of six weeks thereafter. In case the grievance of the petitioner is not addressed, then the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court again and, in the meanwhile, respondents shall not take any action to demolish the existing structure.
It is also directed that the respondents shall de-seal the ground and first floor of the said property within a period of three weeks from the date of this order.
With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of.
As a result of the above-mentioned directions, the impugned orders passed by the learned Estate Officer and Appellate Court shall not sustain.
August 01, 2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J vk
JUDGMENT