Ajay v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr

1. This matter was heard on 28.02.2020 and an order was dictated in 2021:DHC:4414 n thereafter Lockdown was imposed and the staff has since then not been physically comingto the Court.On noticing the above factthe matter was fixedfordirectionstoday.Thesaidorderisnow beingreleasedtoday.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking an appropriate direction to the respondents notto create any hurdle in the construction of the property beingKhasraNo.295/1/1 situated atGaliLallu Missar,Qutab Road,SadarBazar,Delhi.Thecaseofthe petitioneristhatSmt.LadoDevi, great grandmother ofthe petitioner purchased two pieces of property m 1956.Itis also pleaded thatthe property B wasalease hold property while propertyAwasfreeholdproperty. Thetwopropertieshavebeenusedbythe family.It is claimed thatone neighbour hasa grudge againstthe petitioner on account of which a writ petition No. 3853/2011 was filed regarding governmentland measuring about30x 20 which waslying vacantin Gali Lallu Missar,Qutab Road,Sadar Bazar,Delhi.The said writ petition was disposedofon31.05.2011.Acontemptwasalsofiledagainstthepetitioner.

3. It is also claimed that petitioner has applied online with respondent No.l seeking building plan sanction forraisingthe constructionon property B.ThePetitioner filed allthe requisite documents withthe RespondentNo. 1 and paid the requisite fee. The plan was sanctioned by respondentNo.l for property B. It is also claimed that the petitioner has applied for conversion from lease holdto freehold.

4. It is fiirther stated that the petitioner started construction and a false complaint was made.The police stopped the ongoing construction.Hence, the present writpetition. 5:0 respondentItisfurtherpointedoutthatoneofthepropertiesisaleasehold property and it is mandatory for the petitioner to get an NOC from the lessor.ThisNOCitispleaded,hasnotbeenfiled.Hence,itisclaimedthat sanctionoftheplan wasby misrepresentation.

6. The DDA has filed an additional affidavit which is taken on record. As per the additional affidavit there is no requirement for NOC for constructionfromthelessorprovidedtheplanisfiledforuseasspecified m the lease deed.

7. Learned counselappearingfortheSHOnamelyrespondentNo.2has pointedoutthatinthestatusreportithasbeenstatedthatmthependmgwrit petition that was filed in 2011 directions were passed. Demolition was carried outbyrespondentNo.l ofthe property in questioninthe said writ petition.A perusalofthe orderofthis Courtin W.P.(C)3853/2011 shows thatitwasdisposedofwiththedirectionstoMCD/DDAtotakeappropnate actionforunauthorisedconstructioninthe area.

8. The issue pertains to sanction ofthe building plan ofthe petitioner. Letthe petitioner file with the respondent No.l within three weeks from today,theentiresetofpapersincludingcopyofhistitlepapers,copyofthe application for conversion from lease hold to freehold and all other connected paperstorespondentNo.l. Copyofthe applicationforsanction of the plan with foil details be also be filed with respondent No.l. RespondentNo.l maydeal withthesaid application asperlaw within four weeksthereafter from the date ofreceipt. Respondent No.l while dealing with the said applicationofthe petitioner willtake note ofthe statusreport 10, Needless to say, ifthe petitioner is aggrieved by the order ofthe respondentNo.1,heisfreetotakestepsasperlaw. JAYANTNATH,J JANUARY 12^021