Lalit Tiwari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

1. Petitioner had initially, filed an appeal under Section 343(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 challenging demolition order in respect of some construction raised over his flat i.e. flat No. C-157, LIG Flats, Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, Delhi.

2. The above said flat is situated at third floor (top floor) and it is contended that as per the demolition notice, the appellant had raised construction of one room and barsati over the room of such third floor.

3. According to appellant, one room on the terrace was constructed in the year 1999 and the other room was constructed in the year 2004 and these could not have been demolished as the construction, being prior to 07.02.2007, was protected by virtue of protection given under National CM(M) 3550/2024 2 Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011.

4. His appeal was, however, dismissed by learned Tribunal. The conclusion was, primarily, based on the averments which had earlier been made by the appellant himself in one written statement which he had filed in response to one suit filed by his one neighbor Mr. Rajinder Sharma.

5. Before learned Tribunal, it was also contended that the conversion of existing barsati into a room was condonable in nature. However, the learned Tribunal observed that the appellant had not filed any application seeking regularization before the appropriate Authority and, therefore, he was not entitled to seek any benefit of DDA policy.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the above said appellant filed appeal under Section 347-D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, before the Court of learned Principle District and Sessions Judge. However, his such appeal has also been dismissed.

7. Such order is under challenge.

8. This Court is very much conscious of the fact that the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the Court is required to exercise its supervisory powers. The duty of the supervisory Court is to interdict if it finds that the findings are perverse i.e. (i) Erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence, or (ii) Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or (iii) Based on inferences that are impermissible in law. Reference be made to Puri Investments Versus Young Friends and Co. and Others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 283. CM(M) 3550/2024 3

9. In the case in hand, it is quite obvious that the petitioner has made a specific admission when he had filed the above said written statement, in which he had, categorically, claimed that he had not raised any construction of any such room before the year 2003.

10. Mere filing of Property Tax Return would not mean anything significant and substantial in the present factual matrix.

11. It will also be appropriate to refer to the observations made by learned Principle District and Sessions Judge in the impugned order in para 22, which reads as under:-

CM(M) 3550/2024 4 of any such construction. Keeping in view all these facts in my opinion that construction was not prior to 2004 as alleged and hence not protected under the Special Provisions for National Capital Territory of Delhi laws (Special provisions Second Act, 2011).”

12. This Court has also gone through relevant paras of the above said written statement, filed in the year 2003.

13. The above said written statement filed by him seems to have clinched issue against him and the petitioner cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the same, merely by averring that some construction had been raised later on i.e. in the year 2004. Moreover, Principle District and Sessions Judge also noted that in one suit filed by the petitioner herein himself in the year 2013, he himself had claimed that there was no additional construction of any room and barsati.