Bichar Dass & Anr v. Mcd-South

ORDER %

08.07.2013 CM Nos.9923/2013. 9925/2013 & 9927/2013 Exemptions,as prayed for, are allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions. Theseapplicationsstanddisposedoff. WP(C) No.4263/2013 & CM No.9922/2013 WP(C) No.4264/2013 & CM No.9924/2013 WP(C^ No.4265/2013 & CM No.9926/2013

¶1These petitions have been moved under similar circumstances by the petitioners who had, .admittedly, purchased the properties in question sometime after a common demolition order with respect to these properties ^ was passedby the MCD and the propertieshad been duly sealed,sometime in May, 2009. Of course, the petitioners' case is that they were totally unaware of this.

¶2Counsel for the MCD, who appears on advance notice, along with Mr. K.C. Sharma, Assistant Engineer, South Zone, SDMC, on the other hand, asserts that sometime after the properties were sealed, it was noticed that the seals had been tampered with. Appropriate reports were filed with the concerned SHO arid, in this regard, an FIR, bearing No.265/2010, was registered. Pursuant to the registration of said FIR, criminal proceedings were instituted against the erstwhile owners of these properties, which are still going on. It is stated that in 2013, during the coyrse of trial, the trial court inquired from the MCD as to why properties had not been resealed. Pursuant to this, the MCD proceeded to tiy and reseal the properties;and a commonVacationNoticedated IS'*' June, 2013 came to be issued by the MCD with regard to the properties. It was served upon the petitioners.

¶3It is also alleged by the petitioners that pursuant to the Vacation Notice, the team of the MCD assisted by the local police reached the premises whereupon, in two of the cases, the owners/occupiers were compelledto issue letters undertakingto vacate the premiseson 3'*^ July, 2013. There is no such letter in the case of the third property. Of course, there is some controversy with regard to the circumstances under which these letters were written. The petitioners are stated to have approached the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, impugning the Vacation Notice and also asked for interim relief in the matter. While notice was issued by the Appellate Tribunal in the application seeking stay with regard to the Vacation Notice, interim relief was denied. It is primarily against the denial of the interim relief that the instant petitions have been filed.

¶4Counsel for the respondent, inter alia, referred to paragraph 30 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Amrik Sinsh Lvallpuri v. Union of India & Others. (2011) 6 SCC 535, holding that in case an appeal against the order of the Tribunal is preferred, the same should have been filed before the Court of District Judge and not by way of writ, as in this case.

¶5Be that as it may, in view of the fact that, admittedly, the aforesaid appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is listed for tomorrow, i.e., on 9^** July, 2013, and also the factthataccordingto counselfor the MCD it would not be possible in any case for the MCD to carry out the proposed demolition for a week or so, the interest of justice, to my mind, would be well served if these matters are disposed off with a direction to the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, to hear and dispose off the proceedings within the next two weeks, during which time, respondents shall not take any further action in the properties in question keeping in mind the fact that the petitioners claim to have entered into the possession and have been living there for nearly 2 to 3 V2 years. Of course, it would be open to the petitioners to modify or amend the scope of their appeal to include any further challenge to the demolition order and the sealing orders, that are stated to have been passed by the MCD in respect of the properties in question in the year 2009.

¶6Counsel for the MCD further points out that the entire record pertaining to the premises in question shall be deposited tomorrow on 9 July,2013 during the course of hearing before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶7Under the circumstances, it would be open to the petitioners to inspect the said record and the Tribunal is directed to facilitate and permit the petitioners to take copies of any portion of the same if the petitioners so desire. It is made clear that since this matter is being disposed off at this stage itself without any reply being filed by the MCD; this order is being passed without either going into or expressing any view, one way or the other, on the merits of the matter. The proceedings before the Tribunal shall be disposed off being uninfluencedby any observation made in this order. •>-

¶8It is ordered accordingly, and these petitions stand disposed off along with CM Nos.9922/2013, 9924/2013 & 9926/2013, in the above terms.

¶9A copy of this order be givenc/astiunder the signatureof Court Master to counsel for the parties. JULY 08,2013 dr SUDERSHANKUMArMsRA, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W P (C) 4263/2013 DR. BICHAR DASS Petitioner Through Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Prabodh Shukkj Advocates. versus M.C.D. SOUTH Respondents Through Mr. AjayArora,Mr. Kapil,Advocateswith Mr. K. C. Sharma, Assistant Engineer, South Zone, SDMC. AND + W P (C^ 4264/2013 RAM AVTAR SHARMA Petitioner Through Mr. TanmayaMehta, Mr. Prabodh Shukla, ^Advocates. versus M.C.D. SOUTH Respondents Through Mr. AjayArora,Mr. Kapil,Advocateswith Mr. K. C. Sharma, Assistant Engineer, South Zone, SDMC. AND + W P (C^ 4265/2013 VINAY KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner Through Mr.TanmayaMehta,Mr.PrabodhShukla, Advocates. versus 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. M.C.P. SOUTH Respondents Through Mr. Ajay Arora, Mr. Kapil, Advocates with Mr. K. C. Sharma, Assistant Engineer, South Zone, SDMC- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA