Deepak Grover v. The Commissioner of Mcd and Ors

ORDER %

30.09.2011 CM 16531/2011 (by respondent No.5 for correction of the order dated 09.08.2011^ Notice. Counsels for the non-applicant/petitioner and respondent No.l/MCD accept notice. This application is filed by respondent No.5 praying inter alia for ^ rectification of a typographical error in para 8 of the order dated

09.08.2011, by which the writ petition was disposed of. It is stated by the Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant/respondent No.5 that in the last line of para 8, the respondent/MCD was directed to remove the unauthorized construction/encroachment existing in the Page i of 3 )7 subject premises In a time bound manner, preferably within a peripti of four weeks from the date of passing of the order, by following the due process of law. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No.5 that when the order was dictated in open Court, the timeline given to the respondent/MCD was not "four weeks" but "four months". However, upon obtaining the copy of the order, it was found that the timeline granted to the respondent/MCD had inadvertently been typed out as "four weeks". Counsels for the petitioner and respondent No.l/MCD do not deny the aforesaid position. In view of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the applicant/respondent No.5, the present application is allowed. It is directed that para 8 of the order dated 09.08.2011 shall read as below:- "8. However, in the present case, as it is evident from the inspection conducted by the respondent/MCD of the property in question that unauthorized construction/encroachment exists in _ the subject property, hence the present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent/MCD to take appropriate action against the same, in a time bound manner, preferably within a period of four months from today, by following the due process of law." This order shall be read as part and parcel of the order dated

09.08.2011. The application is disposed of. Page 2 of 3 y W.P.fCl 2759/2011 ! Proof of deposit of costs imposed upon the petitioner has been placed on record. The file be consigned to the record room. SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 rkb HIMA KOHLI,J A ■c '0 -i P 'h~. 1/2. 4;.k ^ h'^ C""

> IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.fg 2759/2011 Decided on 09.08.2011 IN THE MATTER OF : DEEPAK GROVER Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate versus THE COMMISSIONER OF MCD AND ORS Respondents Through: Ms.Saroj Bidawat, Advocate for Rl/MCD. Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri and Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocates for R-4/DDA. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Jasmeet Kaur, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Ms. Seema Rao, Advocates for R-5. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI. 3. (Oral) 1- The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of W.p. (C) 2759/2011 Page l of 7 Signed By:RAM DATT 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. mandamus to respondents No.l to 4 to inspect the property be^ng No.31/3195-96, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, where respondent No.S has carried out iilegai construction/encroachment and to take action in accordance with law. 2. Vide order dated 28.04.2011, notice was issued in the present petition. It was also directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Karoi Bagh Zone would coordinate with the Monitoring Committee and undertake an inspection of the site in question within two weeks, whereafter a status report would be filed together with photographs before the next date of hearing, i.e., 31.05.2011. On 31.05.2011, appearance was entered on behalf of respondent No.S. Though a status report was not filed by the respondent/MCD on the said date, the same came to be filed on 01.06.2011. In the status report filed by the Executive Engineer, Building Department, Karol Bagh Zone, MCD, it is averred that as per the record, building plan was sanctioned in respect of the aforesaid property for a basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. The site was got inspected on 27.05.2011 and it was found that the property consisted of a basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor with a projection on municipal land in the front and back portion. It was further stated that the owner/occupier had converted the ground floor portion from residential to commercial in violation of the sanctioned building plan. Further, it was found that there existed other deviations/excess coverage/unauthorized construction contrary to the Page 2 of 7 sanctioned building plan. The unauthorized construction was booked on 30.05.2011 and a notice to show cause was issued under Sections 343/344 of the DMC Act on the same date. It was stated that the Department intended to take further action in respect of the unauthorized construction on the premises by following due process of law. 3. Today, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent/MCD that pursuant to the notice to show cause dated 30.05.2011 issued to the respondent No.5, a demolition order has been passed by MCD on 15.06.2011 in respect of the unauthorized construction in the property in question/encroachment on public land. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.5 states that the present petition has mala fides writ large on the face of it, inasmuch as the petitioner is the son of Shri Ramesh Grover, who is the elder brother of respondent No.5, and he has failed to inform the Court that his father has instituted a civil suit for possession and permanent injunction against respondent No.5 (defendant therein) entitled "Krishna Devi & Ors. vs. Juqal Kishore", which is pending in the Court of the learned ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts. Pertinently, the other plaintiffs in the said suit are the grand-mother of the petitioner, Smt. Krishna Devi and another uncle of the petitioner, Shri Raj Kumar Grover. The attention of this C