Shri Rajesh Kumar & Anr. v. SHO, Police Station Najafgarh & Anr.

(49) WITH + W.P.(C) 1489/2023 and CM APPL. 5571/2023 SUSHIL KUMAR & ANR...... Petitioners versus SHO & ANR...... Respondents (51) AND + W.P.(C) 1491/2023 and CM APPL. 5572/2023 SUMAN BANSAL..... Petitioner versus SHO POLICE STATION NAJAFGARH & ANR...... Respondents CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioners have filed these petitions against Respondent No.1- SHO, PS Najafgarh and Respondent No.2- SDM, Najafgarh seeking directions that the officials of the Respondents ought not to interfere or give directions to stop the construction of boundary wall and filling up of the land/plot of the Petitioners.

3. Ld. counsel for the Petitioners relies upon the order dated 9th February, 2022 passed in similar writ petition being W.P.(C) 2475/2022 titled Shri Rajesh Khanna Through His Father Shri J. C. Khanna v. SHO, Police Station Najafgarh & Anr. and connected writ petitions.

4. Mr. Yadav, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that under Section 475 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter ‘DMC Act’) if any unauthorised construction is made contrary to any rules, regulations or byelaws of the DMC Act, police officers can give information of the same to the Commissioner under the DMA Act. He further relies upon the Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi 2016, to argue that for construction of the boundary wall under clause 2.0.1(d)(vii), no permission is required.

5. Ld. counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submits that under the garb of construction of boundary wall, sewage lines are being installed, land filling is being done and thereafter, unauthorised colonies are being erected.

6. Heard. In W.P.(C) 2475/2022 and connected matters the following order was passed on 9th February, 2022: “These petitions have been filed primarily seeking a restraint order against the authorities more particularly respondent No.1 and its officials from interfering in the construction of the boundary wall on the lands depicted in the petitions. Mr. Anupam Srivastava, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents states that he has instructions from both the respondents that the petitioners are within their right to construct the boundary wall and there shall not be any interference. Taking the statement of Mr. Srivastava on record and in view of submission made by Mr. Yadav at this stage that the statement of Mr. Srivastava shall satisfy the requirement of the writ petitions, the writ petitions and connected applications are disposed of. ”

7. Sections 474 of DMC Act clearly permits the police authorities to arrest any person who violates any rule, regulation or byelaw if the name and address of such persons is unknown and upon demand, if the person committing the violation does not give his name and address. Further, Section 475 of the DMC Act also provides that immediate information of any violation or attempted violation of any rule, regulation, bye-law under the DMC Act is to be given to the Commissioner. The said provision reads:

8. Insofar as the construction of the boundary wall is concerned, clause 2.0.1(d)(vii) of the Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi 2016 also reads as under: “(d) Building permit not required: No notice and building permit is required for addition/alterations which do not otherwise violate any provisions regarding building requirements, structural stability, fire safety requirements and involve no change to the cubic contents or to the built up area of the building, as defined in bye laws, for the following: XXX

(vii) Construction or reconstruction of parapet and also construction or re-construction of boundary walls as permissible under these byelaws;”

9. A conjoint reading of the above provisions shows that so long as there is no dispute as to the ownership of the land, no interference can be caused by the authorities for construction of the boundary wall. However, if there is any further construction, erection or action being taken by the Petitioners without the sanction of law, the same can be reported by the Respondents to the Corporation which would take action in accordance with law.

10. Mr. Yadav’s undertaking on behalf of the Petitioners is recorded to the effect that any construction, erection or any other activity in the land in question shall be strictly in accordance with law.

11. Under these circumstances, it is directed that the Respondents shall not create any hindrance in the erection of the boundary wall in the Petitioners’ land.

12. Accordingly, these writ petitions, along with all pending applications, are disposed of.