Rama Bahuguna v. Delhi Development Authority

1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This writ-petition has been preferred against the order passed by the respondent-DDA dated December 08, 2010 whereby the details of unauthorized construction raised by the petitioner on the second floor of Flat No.433, Pocket-5, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I as reported by the Field Staff have been given and the petitioner has been asked to remove/rectify the deviations indicated at serial Nos.[3] to 5, the same being non-compoundable, within two weeks failing which, it is stated that the DDA shall be at liberty to take action as per Rules. The petitioner has sought quashing of the said order as being violative of principles of nature justice and fairness. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-DDA that the aforesaid order of December 08, 2010 came to be passed 2010:DHC:6299 pursuant to an earlier order of this Court dated September 08, 2010 passed in writ-petition No.8996/2008 whereby the DDA was directed to treat that writ-petition as a representation and was further directed to pass a speaking order within three months. It is further submitted that the deviations at serial Nos.[3] to 5 have been held to be non-compoundable based on the report of the Field Staff and on the basis of Rules and Regulations. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I am of the view that the question whether the unauthorized constructions carried out by the petitioner fell within the category of compoundable or non-compoundable deviations cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The respondent having found some of the deviations to be non-compoundable based on the report of the Field Staff and in keeping with the Rules and Regulations, the petitioner cannot question the same, not at least by way of a writ-petition. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the respondent-DDA to execute conveyance deed in her favour. The learned counsel for the respondent-DDA submits, and in my view rightly, that the conveyance deed can only be executed in favour of the petitioner after the deviations as pointed out by the impugned order dated December 08, 2010 are removed. For the fore-going reasons, there is no merit in the writ-petition. The same is dismissed. Dasti, under the signatures of the Court Master.

REKHA SHARMA, J. DECEMBER 24, 2010 ka