Nawab Ganj Residents Welfare Association v. Mcd and Ors

ORDER '

02.02.2011 l. The petitioner seeks mandamus against the respondent MCD to take action with respect to illegal and unauthorized constructions in properties no.$22r,22,23, 9221-22,9632-34, 9137, 9775, 9679, 9772, 9694 & 9139 in the colony ofNawabganj, Delhi. Z. Notice of the petition was issued and the respondent MCD and the SHO, PS Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi directed to ensure that no unauthorized consffuction takes place in the aforesaid properties. The respondent MCD has since filed a Status Report dated 4th May, 2010 wherein the action taken with respect to each of the properties is stated. It is also stated therein that owners/occupants of some of the properties have approached the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and owing to interim orders wherein no further action can be taken. The counsel for the respondent MCD states that qua other properties where there is no interim order, the appropriate action of demolition shall be 2ts rY \Da taken. It is stated that sealing has already been affected with respect to the said properties.

¶3The counsel for the respondent no.5, concerned with properties no.9632-34, states that the appeal against the demolition order has been dismissed and the respondent no.5 would be seeking appropriate remedies thereagainst. It is also stated that an application for regulaization of the rcg:ularizable unauthorrzed consffuction has also been moved on 1" October, 2010.

¶4In the aforesaid scenario. the is disposed of with the following directions: -

(i) Wherever appeals are pending before the Appellate Tribunal or before the Administrator, Delhi or before any other fora with respect to the unauthorized construction complained of in this petition, the petitioner shall have a right to be heard in opposition thereto. The petitioner if so desires to make appropriate application in the pending proceedings in this regard; writ petition \h 3/s IS,

(ii) The respondent MCD is directed to take action for removal of unauthorized consffuction with respect to properties whereagainst there is no interim order on or before 31" May, 2011. Similarly, action with respect to other properties subject maffer of interim orders, action be taken within two months of vacation of stay. The concerned Executive Engineer is made personally responsible for compliance of the order.

(iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the concerned Executive Engineer if any further unauthorized construction is found underway in any of the properties. Sirnilarly, the petitioner shall be entitled to represent to the Executive Engineer if the action of demolition/sealing is not with respect to the entire unauthorized construction.

(iv) The respondent MCD is directed to dispose of the application for regulaization on or before 3l't March,2011. The petitioner shall also have a right to be heard in opposition to the regulaization application and be served with a notice of the date of hearine therefor. 4ts 1,( t

¶5Contempt case has been filed averring violation of the order dated 6tn April, 2010 in the writ petition directing the respondents MCD and Police to ensure that no fuither unauthorized consfiuction takes place. No notice has been issued as yet. However the counsel for the alleged contemnors appears on advance notice and states that the properties were inspected on 25'h October, 2010 and the seals earlier affixed were found to be intact and no further ongoing consffuction was found.

¶6In view of the order aforesaid in the writ petition, it is not deemed expedient to entertain the conternpt petition.

¶7The writ petition as well as the contempt petition are disposed of with no order as to costs. \ ---5-- FEBRUARY 02,2011 pp.. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J \/\./ "/ / J/J

la 20. s- * --t \- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 219112010 & CM No.446712010 (for interim relief; NAWAB GANJ RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Hare Rarn Singh & Mr. Manoj Barhela, Advocates. Versus MCD AND ORS '.. .. ResPondents Through: Ms. Suparna Srivastav4 Advocate for R-1 Mr. Nirbhay Sharma for Ms. Anjum Javed, Advocate for R-2 with InsP. Vrjay Kumat, PS Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. Mr. G.S. Raghav & Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocates for R-5. Mr. Satish Bhardwaj, SHO PS Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. AND 2t.+ coNT.cAS(C) 63712010 NAWAB GANJ RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION ....' Petitioner Through: Mr. Hare Ram Singh & Mr. Manoj Barhela. Advocate MCD & ORS Versus rhrough: Ms. Mini Pushkarna ;,t'ifl::ffill Singh, Advocates for R-l ll5 ) Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. t3 ,"-'\ Mr. P. Mallikarjuna, Advocate for Mr. Saleern Ahmed & Mr. Aneesh.T.S., Advocate for R-5 with InsP VtjaY Kutnar, PS Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJTV SAHAI ENDLAW