Biru Ram & Anr. v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Delhi High Court · 23 Sep 2021 · 2021:DHC:2993
Sanjeev Sachdeva
W.P. (C) 10831/2021
2021:DHC:2993
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioners to file a fresh regularization application with complete ownership documents and restrained the municipal corporation from coercive action until the application was decided on merits.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P. (C) 10831/2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on: 23rd September, 2021
W.P.(C) 10831/2021
BIRU RAM & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arush Kapoor, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate
CORAM:-
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
CM APPLN. 33420/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

1. Petitioner seeks stay on the vacation order dated 13.09.2021 and a direction to the respondent corporation not to take any coercive action in respect of property bearing No. T-510/C, Hill Road, Baljit Nagar, Delhi till the regularization application is heard and decided. W.P.(C) 10831/2021 & CM APPLN. 33421/2021 (stay) 2021:DHC:2993

2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondent.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation submits that the regularization application stands rejected by order dated 12.02.2021 on the ground that chain of ownership was not complete.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has never been communicated to the petitioner. He further submits that father of the petitioner was the owner of the property and he by a registered Will has bequeathed the property in favour of the petitioners. He submits that even otherwise petitioners are Class-I legal heirs of the deceased/owner of the property Mr. Nathu Ram.

5. He further submits that no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce the ownership documents.

6. Without getting into said controversy, since rejection of the regularization application has been done on the limited ground of incomplete ownership chain, an opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to produce the complete chain of ownership documents in support of the regularization application.

7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to file a fresh application for regularization along with documents of chain of ownership within a period of two weeks from today.

8. Thereafter, respondent-Corporation shall dispose of the application for regularization on merits within a period of two weeks. In case the application is proposed to be rejected, a speaking order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner to enable the petitioners to take their remedies in law.

9. Till the time the regularization application is decided and if rejected, for a period of one week thereafter, no coercive action shall be taken against the property of the petitioners.

10. It is, however, clarified that in case no regularization application is filed within a period of two weeks from today, this order shall automatically lapse and the Corporation would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law without recourse to the Court.

11. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 ‘rs’