A.No. 577/18 Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith...

A.No. 577/18 05.10.2018

Present : Sh. S.K. Dabas, proxy counsel for appellant.

Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.

Anil Aggarwal, AE(B).

Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.

Status report filed stating that unauthorized construction in

the shape of part portion at fourth floor in continuation of previous

booking file no. 3 dated 13.09.2017 has been booked vide file no.

91/C-18/B-II/UC/CLZ/2018 dated 06.07.2018.

Demolition order was passed on 13.07.2018 and

programme was fixed on 29.08.2018 but the action could not be

taken due to shortage of time.

Original record produced regarding the latest booking only

i.e. dated 06.07.2018. The record of previous booking has not

been produced.

Ld. counsel for respondent Sh. H.R. Aggarwal submits

that the previous record is not produced because the booking

was only relating to the fourth floor of the property.

Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD is reminded that FIR

dated 06.07.2018 itself speaks that this booking is in continuation

of previous booking. It appears that respondent is indirectly

facilitating for extension of stay. Concerned Dy. Commissioner is

directed to appear in person and take necessary administrative

action against the AE(B) concerned. AE(B) concerned is directed

to appear in person alongwith explanation as to how further

construction is raised despite the initial booking for unauthorized

construction on 13.09.2017 and why no proceedings u/s 343 of

the DMC Act has been initiated regarding the said booking.

Put up this matter on 23.10.2018.

Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.

Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for

compliance.

(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.

Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018

A.No. 596/14 & 597/14 05.10.2018

Present : None for appellant.

Sh. Amit Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh. Naveen

Grover, counsel for MCD / Sh. Manoj Kumar,

proxy counsel for Sh. Ashutosh Gupta,

counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Rajiv Garg,

Nodal Officer for North DMC.

None has appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Since no one has appeared on behalf of the

appellant, the appeal is dismissed in default and for non-

prosecution. Respondent is at liberty to take action as per

law in pursuance of impugned order challenged herein.

File be consigned to record room.



A.No. 238/12 05.10.2018

Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for DDA alongwith Sh.

Praveen Kumar, JE(Bldg), DDA.

Status report filed stating that a letter of AR of Reliance

Communication Ltd. dated 15.01.2018 was received in the

Building Department, DDA with the subject reply in respect of

approval of height from Airport Authority of India for the Plot No.

2-3, Bhanot Trade Centre Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.

The manual of Airport Authority of India was mentioned as

Annexure-B. No proof of Annexure-A & Annexure-B is available

in the building file submitted by the appellant.

The appellant was informed in that regard regarding

approval of Airport Authority of India vide communication dated

24.10.2016, 09.03.2017 and 23.10.2017 and letter dated

25.09.2018 and 08.08.2018 was sent for submitting Annexure-A

& Annexure-B.

In the end of status report it is stated that once the

documents regarding clearance of SACFA alongwith Annexure-A

& Annexure-B are submitted to the building section, then the case

of building permit of installation of mobile tower shall be

processed accordingly.

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks two months time to make

the necessary compliance as find mentioned in the status report.

The appeal is very old. In case, the appellant doesn’t take

the necessary steps as required as per the status report, the

appellant will be burdened with costs of Rs. 20,000/-.

Put up this matter for filing further status report regarding

decision on the application of the appellant on 11.12.2018.


compliance.



A.No. 168/17 & 21/15 05.10.2018


Ms. Manjusha Jha / Sh. V.K. Aggarwal,

counsel for MCD.

Status report filed stating that the tower was

inspected by JE(B) on 04.10.2018 and found that the same

was not dismantled by the appellant. The tower was sealed

on 04.10.2018.

Four weeks time sought by counsel for appellant to

settle the disputes with landlord.

In case, the tower is not dismantled within six weeks,

the respondent is at liberty to take action in pursuance of

impugned order challenged herein and file status report on

11.12.2018.

For the purpose of dismantling by the appellant,

respondent will deseal the property as per request made in

that regard and given the sufficient time to dismantle the

same.


compliance.



A.No. 806/15 05.10.2018


Sh. Subodh Kumar, counsel for MCD.

Status report filed stating that property was desealed

on 04.09.2018 and JE(B) inspected the site and found that

tower has been removed by the appellant.

In view of status report, the appeal is disposed off

and the impugned sealing order dated 04.09.2015 stands

satisfied.

File be consigned to record room.



A.No. 320/16 05.10.2018


Sh. A.K. Mishra, counsel for MCD.

Status report filed stating that property was inspected on

21.09.2017 and the property does not falls in Gali No. 4,

Chauhan Bangar but the same falls in Gali No. 11, Khaddewali

Masjid, Agarbatti wali Gali, Chauhan Bangar having cellular poles

of Aircel Ltd.

The said mobile tower was erected without permission

from EDMC. Mobile tower was sealed on 15.01.2016. However,

no seal was found during the inspection.

The appeal against the order passed by Hon’ble District &

Session East District in RCA No. 157/2016 dated 10.04.2016

titled as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. Vs. EDMC is pending

before Hon’ble High Court and listed for 31.01.2019.

Ld. counsel for appellant stated that in view of the

settlement dated 30.01.2017 arrived in Hon’ble High Court, the

said appeal is not maintainable as become infructuous.

The demolition / sealing programme was fixed on

25.09.2018 and the tower was sealed at one point. However the

appellant was not using the tower. No reference file has been

submitted by the appellant till date.

Adjournment sought by the appellant to file the proof to

inform the Aircel Ltd. regarding the proceeding pending before

NCLT.

In case, the necessary steps are not taken by the

appellant within four weeks, appeal shall be dismissed for non-

prosecution and non-compliance.

Put up this matter for filing status report by the respondent

and arguments on 11.12.2018.


compliance.



M.No. 23/18 05.10.2018

Present : Sh. Rohit Nagpal, counsel for appellant.

An application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC alongwith

application for condonation of delay has been filed by the

appellant for restoration of appeal no. 1006/14 in respect of

misuse of property under M.C. Mehta Case. On

16.02.2015, it was observed that the last date of filing of

appeal before this Tribunal is 31.10.2013.

Ld. counsel for appellant has sought time to

approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for getting extension

of time in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Matter was

adjourned for 15.05.2015. Thereafter, appellant did not

appear and the appeal was dismissed in default and for

non-prosecution on 22.07.2016.

No permission of Hon’ble Supreme Court as was

sought to be obtained and produced before this Tribunal

has been obtained.

It is not clear that how the application for restoration

is maintainable? The delay in filing the appeal has to be

condoned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as was observed

in the above mentioned order.

Let the limited notice regarding the maintainability of

this application be issued to the respondent for 12.11.2018.



A.No. 780/14 & 1110/13 05.10.2018


Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.

Status report filed stating that application for

regularization was received on 10.01.2018. Clarification

has been sought regarding deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- by M/s

Airtel Company vide G-8 receipt no. 848100 dated

16.11.2004, however, application for fresh permission has

been received from M/s Indus Towers.

Let the said clarification be done by the respondent

within two weeks.

Put up this matter for deciding the application and

filing of status report by the respondent on 11.12.2018.



A.No. 922/15 05.10.2018


Sh. Niraj Kumar, counsel for MCD.

Status report not filed.

It is stated that draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- is prepared by

the appellant whereas Rs. 40,000/- is to be deposited.

The said amount will be deposited within two weeks.

Put up this matter for filing status report by the

respondent on 11.12.2018.



A.No. 138/14 05.10.2018


Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.

Status report filed by the respondent stating that

application for regularization has been filed vide file dated

27.09.2018 and deposited the requisite processing fees of

Rs. 4,50,000/- on 27.09.2018 and the same is under

consideration.

Respondent is directed to file status report regarding

decision on the said application on 11.12.2018.



A.No. 785/16 05.10.2018


Sh. Gaurav, proxy counsel for Sh. Sandeep

Kaushik, counsel for MCD.

Status report filed stating that regularization

application was filed on 25.05.2018. IN was issued on

13.06.2018. No compliance was made by the appellant

accordingly, application was rejected and communicated to

the appellant vide letter dated 21.08.2018.

No further fresh application has been received.

Respondent is at liberty to take action in pursuance

of demolition order challenged herein.

Put up this matter for filing action taken report by the




M.No. 1038/17 05.10.2018


Sh. Manoj, proxy counsel for Sh. Ashutosh

Gupta, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Vinod

Bansal, AE(B).

Today, matter is listed for filing of status report /

action taken report as appeal is already dismissed as

withdrawn.

Status report filed stating that owner / occupier of the

property has applied for regularization of property on

08.03.2018. IN was issued on 24.08.2018. Due to non-

compliance of IN, regularization application was rejected on

11.09.2018. After rejection of regularization application,

demolition action was taken on 24.09.2018, 26.09.2018 ad

27.09.2018 and demolished the roof slab of ground floor,

first floor, second floor and third floor.

The property in question is uninhabitable / un-usable.

Photographs of the property also placed on record.

Respondent is directed to file further status report

with regard to remaining demolition action if any they intend

to take or the property has been completely demolished.

Put up this matter for filing of status report by the


Copy of order be given Dasti for compliance.



A.No. 261/18, 262/18 & 263/18 05.10.2018


Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Mahender Singh, L.I.

Ms. Vinnie Sharma, counsel for Monitoring

Committee.

Sh. Mahender Singh, Licensing Inspector who is

present and filed status report singed by Administrative

Officer, Sh. Bhagat Singh.

In the status report, nothing new from the previous

status report filed on 17.01.2018.

In addition, it is simply stated that the case was sent

to EE(B), Rohini Zone for calculating the misuse charges on

24.08.2018 which was returned by JE(B) with remarks that it

was not possible to measure the sealed premises on

25.09.2018. In the meantime, the JE(B) was placed under

suspension on 28.09.2018.

For the purpose of calculating the misuse charges,

the Commissioner was empowered to deseal the property

himself, however a request is made to deseal the same for

the said purpose.

The competent authority is at liberty to deseal the

property on any day for the said purpose and reseal the

same on the same day.

Ms. Vinnie Sharma, counsel for Monitoring

Committee is present and clarified that after discussion with

the Members of Monitoring Committee, she has to submit

that such like cases are not dealt with by the Monitoring

Committee because the impugned order in this appeal has

not be passed on the directions of Monitoring Committee.

Ld. counsel for respondent also submitted that the

appeal is maintainable before this Tribunal because the

impugned order has not been passed in the direction of

Monitoring Committee. Though in this regard, the judgment

is already passed in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. UOI.

A.No. 261/18, 262/18 & 263/18 - 2 -

Respondent is directed to calculate the misuse

charges / penalty and further clarified that as to in which

area unauthorized colony / unauthorized regularized colony

/ lal dora or village abadi the property falls and for what

purpose the same was used by the appellant as per MPD-

2021 / Building byelaws 2016.

Put up this matter for filing of status report by the


Copy of order be given Dasti for compliance.



A.No. 38/15,167/15

05.10.2018 Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi , counsel for the appellant.

Sh.Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for the NDMC

alongwith Nodal Officer Sh. Sandeep Manglik.

Sh. Rambir Chauhan, counsel for the applicant.

Reply to the application u/o 1 R 10 filed.

Put up for arguments on the said application

and final arguments on 14.05.2019.

Interim orders, if any, to continue till next date

of hearing.

(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD

05.10.2018

A.No. 409/17

05.10.2018 Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain , counsel for the appellant.

Sh.H.R.Aggarwal, counsel for the respondent.

As per status report filed today, application

for regularization of the tower has not been filed.

Counsel for the appellant clarified that

application was filed in the Central zone and Central

Zone informed to file the application in South zone and

for that reason application could not be filed.

In the interest of justice, appellant is

directed to move the application within two weeks with

the directions to supply one copy of the same to the Ld

counsel for respondent in his chamber and thereafter

decision be taken on the same within 4 weeks by the

respondent and file the status report in this regard. In

case, appellant has not taken any steps as directed,

appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed.

Put up this matter for filing of status report

on 08.02.2019.


05.10.2018

A.No. 1040/17, 1041/17

05.10.2018 Present : Sh. M.S.Khan, counsel for the appellant.

Sh.Vikas Gupta, counsel for the respondent.

Both the parties are directed to file written

brief submissions.

Put up for final arguments on 10.05.2019.


05.10.2018

A.No. 965/14, 966/14

05.10.2018 Present : Sh. M.S.Khan, counsel for the appellant.

Sh.Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for the NDMC.


brief submissions.



05.10.2018

A.No. 56/17

05.10.2018 Present : Sh.Vinay Chadha, proxy counsel for

Sh. R.P.Kaushik, counsel for the appellant.

Sh. Anil Mishra, counsel for the respondent.

Status report filed stating that construction

at the property at ground floor, first floor, second floor,

third floor and mumty above third floor matches with

the affidavit of the appellant.

Adjournment sought as main counsel for

appellant is not available.

Last and final opportunity is granted for

hearing arguments and no further adjournment will be

given.


Interim orders, if any, to continue till next

date of hearing.


05.10.2018

A.No. 893/17

05.10.2018 Present : Appellant in person.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for SDMC

alongwith AE(B) Sh. Sunil Chauhan.

Status report filed regarding measurement

details given in the affidavit in compliance of order

dated 08.12.2017 and the construction as site is tallied

with the construction as mentioned in the affidavit.

Adjournment sought by the appellant as

his counsel is not available.

Last and final opportunity is granted for

arguments.

Both the parties are directed to written

brief submissions.

Put up on 04.04.2019.


05.10.2018

A.No. 933/17

05.10.2018 Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi , counsel for the appellant.

AE(B) Sh. S.K.Sharma for the respondent.


brief submission within two weeks.



05.10.2018

A.No. 559/15

05.10.2018 Present : Sh.Jitender Chaudhary, counsel for the

appellant.

Sh. Manoj Kumar proxy counsel for Sh.

Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for the respondent

alongwith concerned AE(B).

Status report filed in compliance of order

dated 08.08.2018 stating that respondent has initiated

the action u/s 343 & 344 of the DMC Act against DDA

flat no. 66B, 66D, 67A and 66C vide file no. 380/UC/B-

I/SZ/15 dated 02.12.2015 as informed by the then

officials that personal hearing was extended to the

involving parties, though the further proceedings or

outcome in the form of speaking order is not available

on record and accordingly communication is being

made with the then staff and this court will be apprised

on the next date in that regard.

The present appeal is with regard to the

flat no. 66C only. Record has been produced which

depicts that property was booked on 05.06.2015 for

deviations against the sanctioned building plan. Show

cause notice was issued on 05.06.2015 to Sh.

Surender Khari and show cause notice was served by

way of pasting on 12.06.2015 and notice was also sent

through speed post.

It seems that additional affidavit not filed

by the appellant on 10.07.2017. Respondent is directed

to file photocopy of the dak register showing the

service of the show cause notice which has been done

on the previous date. However, respondent was further

directed to file site plan of the property in question

showing the deviation which are beyond the standard

building plan. The said building plan of the property

A.No. 559/15 -2-

showing deviation has not yet to be filed by the

respondent.

In the absence of the said additional

affidavit of the appellant, status report regarding

existing standard plan has not been filed by the

respondent.

Counsel for the appellant states that said

additional affidavit will be filed within a week and copy

will be supplied to the AE(B) concerned.

AE(B) is directed to verify the nature of the

construction and measurement of the same viz-a-viz

affidavit/additional affidavit and status report be filed .

Respondent is directed to comply the order dated

10.07.2018 within a week by filing sanctioned building

plan of the property showing deviations . Respondent is

further directed to file action taken report with respect

to flat no. 66B, 66D and 66A. Further, respondent is

directed to clarify regarding the demolition order if any

having been passed in respect of booking done on

02.12.2015. In view of the ambiguous report filed

today, respondent is directed to file status report in

compliance of order dated 08.08.2018 and order

passed today under the hand and signature of

concerned Dy. Commissioner.

Counsel for appellant submits that in case

owners of flat no. 66B, 66D and 66A are being given

hearing, appellant may also permitted to join the

hearing. It is stated that in case there is subsequent

booking of the flat of the appellant, he may be

permitted to join the proceedings before Quasi judicial

authority alongwith other flat owners mentioned above.

However, as per status report nothing can be

concluded that hearing be given to the appellant to

appear before Quasi judicial authority with the other

A.No. 559/15 -3-

owners that will be evident after further status report to

be filed.

Put up this matter for filing further status

report /final arguments/ status report regarding

verification and measurements on 15.01.2019.

Dy. Assessor and Collector concerned is

directed to produce the complete record of house tax

with regard to the property in question.

Interim orders, if any, to continue till next

date of hearing. Copy of this order be given dasti.


05.10.2018

A.No. 514/17, 515/17, 516/17, 517/17, 518/17 & 519/17

05.10.2018 Present : Sh. G.R.Verma, counsel for the appellant.

Sh.V.K. Aggarwal proxy counsel for Ms. Kriti

Aggarwal/ Sh. Mohit Sharma counsel for the

respondent.

Copy of the application for reopening of

the regularization application supplied today.

Put up for filing status report regarding

decision on the regularization application and

arguments on 15.05.2019.


05.10.2018

A.No. 46/18

05.10.2018 Present : None for the appellant for the last 2 dates.

Sh.K.K. Arora, counsel for the respondent.

Detailed status report was filed on

04.07.2018 stating that appeal was barred by limitation

in view of the order dated 30.04.2013 of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India wherein appellant and the

other similar persons were given opportunity to

challenge the Monitoring Committee’s orders of

sealing before the Hon’ble Tribunal within a time bound

period. Appellant was required to seek extension of

limitation period from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India as was done by other appellants similarly placed

persons.

After filing of the status report counsel for

the appellant sought appearance of appellant for the

withdrawal of the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed in default for non-

prosecution. MCD is at liberty to take action as per law

in respect of the property of the appellant.

File be consigned to Record Room.


05.10.2018

A.No. 659/18 05.10.2018

Present : Sh.M.K. Dhingra, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Sanjay Sethi, counsel for respondent.


Original record produced, the same be deposited with the

Registrar of this Tribunal.

Status report not filed.

As per the record the property was booked on 02.07.2018

for unauthorized construction on ground floor and first floor.

Show cause notice dated 02.07.2018 was issued and sent to Sh.

Kaptan Singh through speed post. Demolition order has been

passed on 27.07.2018. Reply was not found satisfactory,

speaking order dated 27.07.2018 u/s 343/344 of the DMC Act

speaks that amble opportunity of personal hearing was granted to

the appellant. The applicant was failed to submit any

document/proof to show that the construction was old or no

unauthorized construction was carried by him.

It appears that appellant has no document to prove the

impugned construction is old one.

Appellant has placed on record an application u/s 151 of

the CPC for regularization of the construction as per Building Bye

Laws. One copy of the application has been supplied to the

counsel for respondent.

AE(B) and JE(B) are absent. Record has been produced

by Sh. Raj Singh, LDC.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that appellant is

required to submit a file for regularization alongwith all necessary

documents and annexure and moving of the application and

handing over to him is not a sufficient step in that regard.

Adjournment sought to move the said application for

regularization within two weeks.

Put up for further proceedings and arguments on

16.11.2018.



A.No. 584/18 05.10.2018

Present : None for the appellant.

Ms. Renu Soni, Nodal Officer for SDMC.

Nodal Officer pointed out that no service has been

affected till today. The process was ordered dasti.

Since no one is present on behalf of the appellant

and no steps taken by the appellant, the appeal is

dismissed in default and for want of prosecution.

Respondent is at liberty to take action in the property

in question in pursuance of the impugned order and file

status report before this Tribunal.

The file of the department, if any, be returned to the

respondent alongwith copy of this order. File be consigned

to record room.

Registrar is directed to prepare a miscellaneous file

for the purpose of filing action taken report by the




A.No. 379/18 & 380/18 05.10.2018

Present : Sh. Avishek Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Sandeep Gupta, counsel for respondent

alongwith Sh. P.K. Tiwary, AE(B).

File taken upon as an application for early hearing

was moved on the ground that on 01.09.2018 during

pendency of the present appeal, the officials of the

respondent visited the property and executed the demolition

order after desealing the suit property carried out demolition

on the roof of the second floor and again resealed the said

property. It, therefore, prayed that the stay application may

be heard urgently.

Status report was filed on 03.08.2018, on which date

Presiding Officer was on leave, stating that property was

booked on 08.02.2018 for unauthorized construction in the

shape of ground floor and first floor. Show cause notice

was issued to the owner/builder by speed post on

17.02.2018 and after due process of law, demolition order

was passed on 23.03.2018.

Sealing proceedings u/s 345A of the DMC Act were

initiated and sealing order was passed on 12.04.2018 by

the competent authority.

Demolition program is executed on 09.04.2018 on

first floor and second floor projection on Mpl Land. Nothing

is mentioned what action has been taken. There is no

mention in the original record regarding demolition action

after 13.07.2018.

No further action taken report filed in pursuance of

the impugned order.

Ld. counsel for respondent stated that the property

was inspected on 31.08.2018 and seal was found tempered.

The property was again re-sealed on 31.10.2018 and

demolition action took place on 01.09.2018 wherein RCC

penal were cut on fourth floor. It is stated by the AE(B) that

status report is not filed because he has been

A.No. 379/18 & 380/18

transferred and the further status report will be filed by the

new AE(B).

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that he does not

press stay application at this stage. And he has moved the

application as property is lying sealed.

It is further submitted that the allegation of tempering

sealing on 31.08.2018 is totally vague and if seal was

tempered, the respondent could have lodged the FIR which

otherwise is not the case of the respondent.

Counsel for appellant submits that the property is

under construction and appellant is ready to remove the

deviations, excess coverage, if any in the construction so

that to bring the construction within the parameter of the

sanctioned plan.

Counsel for respondent submits that appellant should

give copy of the existing building plan alongwith Sanctioned

Building Plan and to mark the deviations and alleged excess

coverage upon the plan, which he intends to demolish by

moving an application so that the same can be considered

accordingly.

The appellant is directed to take steps/ action

accordingly.

Adjourn for date fixed i.e. 10.01.2019.



A.No. 722/18 05.10.2018

Present : Sh. V.K. Arora, counsel for appellant.

Sh. K.K. Arora, counsel for respondent

alongwith Sh. Ravi Kumar, AE(B).

Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent filed.

Status report filed stating that the consequent upon

receiving complaint the impugned property was inspected

and fount it is an old and occupied property and there has

been carried out deviation against standard building plan in

the shape of excess coverage at first floor and second floor.

The property was booked u/s 343/344 of the DMC

Act on 03.05.2018. show cause notice was issued and

served upon the owner and his submissions were heard.

In the absence of concrete documentary evidence,

demolition order was passed on 20.09.2018.

AE(B) concerned stated that the excess coverage

and deviations has been mentioned in the speaking order.

AE(B) pointed out para-2 of the speaking order where it is

mentioned that only temporary tin shed to protect the door

and window and avoiding flooding in the house during the

rainy season, as has been alleged in the reply.

It is further stated in the speaking order that reply

speaks of those sheds installed about 30 years ago.]

It also find mentioned in the speaking order that in

their reply and personal hearing the owner Sh. J.N.

Bhardwaj and his wife, both attended the hearing and

explained to the Quasi Judicial Authority that owner beneath

their flat have blocked the rain water pipe causing water

logging in their courtyard (open balcony). The have

provided ACC sheet long back in the year 1985 to prevent

water logging / flooding which is not causing any hindrance

to sun light.

A.No. 722/18 -2-

It is further stated by them they are ready to take

corrective measuring, if the owner of ground floor permits

and co-operate in getting the rain water pipe functional/

operational.

It was further contended by the appellant before the

Quasi Judicial Authority that the above mentioned

deviations /addition carried out was well within the

permissible items. It was further contended that the

construction being prior to 07.02.2007 is exempted from

punitive action. The Quasi Judicial Authority has examined

the matter and did not find any single iota of evidence which

suffice the claim of the appellant regarding existing of the

construction (subject matter of the notice) being 30 years

old. It is, therefore, concluded that the construction being

raised beyond the standard building plan is actionable and

liable to be demolished.

AE(B) concerned seeks adjournment to specify the

excess coverage/deviations from the standard building plan

including the addition/alteration within two weeks.

Ld. counsel for appellant submitted that concerned

AE(B) may also consider the documents placed at page

No.55 of the appeal which is an advertisement of the DDA

dated 09.09.1997 published in Indian Express newspaper.

Put up for filing the further status report, considering

the above mentioned points and arguments on the stay

application on 30.11.2018.

Till then respondent is restrained from taking any

coercive action in the property of the appellant bearing DDA

flat No.56, type-III, Vasant Enclave, Vasant Vihar, New

Delhi in pursuance of demolition order dated 20.09.2018.

However, this order is subject to any order passed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court / Hon’ble High Court / Hon’ble

NGT about sealing and demolition in respect of the property

in question.

A.No. 722/18 -3-

Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details of

construction with measurements of the existing construction

alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property

in question within five working days, failing which stay order

granted shall deemed to be vacated.

Copy of the affidavit will be provided to concerned

AE(B), who shall verify whether details of construction

mentioned in the affidavit is correct or not.

Appellant is also directed not to carry out any

addition, alteration, repair or construction and shall also not

create any third party interest in the property in question.

Copy of the order be given Dasti to counsel for

appellant, as prayed.



A.No. 654/18 05.10.2018

Present : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Inderveer Singh, AE(B).


Record produced. Let the same be deposited with

the Registrar of this Tribunal.

Status report and reply to the appeal not filed.

As per original record, vide FIR dated 09.06.2010

property No.28, Gali No.6, Sarojini Park, Delhi-51 was

booked for unauthorized construction in the shape of ground

floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor with

projection on mpl. Land. Show cause notice dated

09.06.2016 was issued and sent through speed post.

Demolition order was passed on 20.06.2016. Action could

not be taken on various dates starting from 20.07.2016 to

06.03.2017.

On 06.03.2017 special program was fixed

contemplated action gook place in the said property

wherein roof slab/ panel and reinforcement bars has been

cut down at roof of fourth floor. Subsequently on

03.05.2017 further demolition took place in the shape of roof

slab/ panel and reinforcement and demolished brick walls

both sides and removal of window doors etc. at roof of

fourth floor with the help of police force.

Lastly on 27.07.2018 demolition action book place

where one Number RCC Panel has been demolished at

roof of fourth floor, two number walls have been

demolished.

With regard to the application U/s 5 of the Limitation

Act, ld. counsel referred Para-9 of the application seeking

condonation of delay wherein it is stated that appellant

A.No. 654/18 -2-

came in the knowledge of demolition order on 30.06.2017

when the officials of the respondent came at the property on

27.08.2018 and carried out demolition action. Hence, the

present appeal is within limit.

Ld. counsel for the respondent submitted that

appellant got the knowledge of the impugned order dated

30.06.2016 when department has taken demolition action

on 27.08.2018, however the present appeal was filed on

12.09.2018 which has to be filed within six days of passing

of the order. Each day delay has to be explained by the

appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

Hence, the present appeal is time barred and liable to be

dismissed.

It is a settled law that while applying for condonation

of delay the appellant is required to explain each day’s

delay. In the present case, there is a delay about more than

two years as the demolition order was passed on

30.06.2016, the appeal has been filed on 12.09.2018. The

knowledge of the impugned order has been imputed upon

the appellant on 06.03.2017 and 03.05.2017 as admitted by

him in Para No.9 of the application when MCD officials

came at the property in question and took demolition action.

No satisfactory explanation for delay has been given by the

appellant in the application.

In N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 RLR

571 (SC)=(1998) 7 SCC 123, it is held that condonation of

delay should ordinarily receive liberal construction unless

party is guilty of malafides or deliberate delay. Criterion is

not length of delay but it is acceptability of explanation.

Court is of the view that in every case of delay, there can be

some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned but that

alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the

door against him. If the explanation does not smack of

A.No. 654/18 -3- malafides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy,

the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor.

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Lal vs Rewa

Coal fields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, while construing

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is relevant to bear in mind

that the expiration of limitation period for filing appeal gives

rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the

decree as binding between the parties and this legal right

which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time

should not be light heartedly disturbed. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court further held that proof of sufficient cause is a

condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary

jurisdiction vested in the court but even after sufficient cause

has been shown, a party is not entitled to condonation of

delay as a matter of right.

In another case Shubhra Chit Fund Vs Sudhir

Kumar, 112 (2004) DLT 609, the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi held that too much latitude and leniency will made the

provisions of the Limitation Act otiose which approach must

be eschewed by the courts.

In Finolux Auto Pvt. Ltd. vs Finolex Cables Ltd., 136

(2007) DLT 585 DB, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court

that :

“In this regard, we may refer to decision of the

Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran vs State

of Kerala IV (1997) CLT (SC)= AIR 1998 SC

2276. In the said decision the Supreme Court

has held that unless and until a reasonable or

satisfactory explanation is given, the inordinate

delay should not be condoned. In Para 6 of the

judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down in

the following manner:

“Law of limitation may harshly affect a

particular party but it has to be applied with

all its rigour when the statute so prescribed

and courts have no power to extend the

period of limitation on equitable grounds.

A.No. 654/18 -4-

The discretion exercised by the High Court

was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The

order condoning the delay cannot be

sustained.”

While dealing with condonation of delay application,

Supreme Court in Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh 2010

(6) SCALE 749 held that justice must be done to both

parties equally, then alone the ends of justice can be

achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligently in

implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair

to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has

accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly. The

Supreme Court further held that explanation has to be

reasonable or plausible, so as to persuade the court to

believe that the explanation rendered is not only true but is

worthy of exercising judicial discretion in favour of applicant.

If it does not specify any of the enunciated ingredients of

judicial pronouncements, then the application should be

dismissed. On the other hand, if the application is bona fide

and based upon true and plausible explanations as well as

reflect normal behavior of a common prudent person on the

part of the applicant, the court would normally tilt the judicial

discretion in favour of such an applicant. Liberal

construction cannot be equated with doing injustice to the

other party.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the

considered view that no ground for condonation of delay is

made out. The application is accordingly dismissed and the

appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation.

Record of the respondent alongwith copy of the order

be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to record room.



A.No.702/18 05.10.2018

Present : Appellant with counsel Sh. Shoib Haider.

This is an appeal against demolition order dated

04.09.2018.

No application seeking condonation of delay has

been filed.

It is submitted that the demolition order came into the

knowledge of the appellant on 07.09.2018.

Let an application for condonation of delay be filed as

the appeal is barred by limitation.

Subject to filing of the application for condonation of

delay, which should be filed either today or on next working

day, issue notice of the appeal and application to the

respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B) is

directed to appear in person alongwith entire record of the

proceedings, status report and reply of the appeal on date

fixed. Record be deposited immediately in the Tribunal.

Put up this matter on 12.10.2018. Notice be given

Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 738/18 05.10.2018

Present : Sh. Avishek Kumar, counsel for appellant.


26.12.2016 alleging unauthorized construction in property

No.D-331, Gali No.12, D-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92 in

the shape of ground floor, first floor and second floor.

It is stated that said order was challenged in appeal

No.74/17 which was dismissed as withdrawn on

29.12.2017, copy of the order placed on record. The

appellant applied for sanction building plan on 28.12.2017

which was sanctioned on 21.02.2018. The appellant started

raising construction thereafter which is almost complete.

The respondent officials came to demolish the property

which has been raised as per Sanctioned Building Plan

without passing any demolition order or giving show cause

notice. Not even a single document has been placed on

record when the construction was started as per Sanctioned

Building Plan because photograph placed on record is of

the complete building.

In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to

grant ex-parte stay.

Issue notice of the appeal and application to the






Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 713/18 05.10.2018

Present : Sh. Sharan Dev and Sh. H.L. Dewan, counsel

for appellant.


26.06.2018 passed in respect of property bearing No.58,

Parwana Lane, Dhobi Ghat, Civil Lines, Delhi-54 alleging

unauthorized construction at ground floor and first floor.

Show cause notice dated 08.06.2018 is also attached in

original.

It is submitted by the ld. counsel for appellant that

appellant came to know about the demolition notice about 5-

6 days back when the same was found lying in the premises

of the appellant.

No application for condonation of delay has been

filed.

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks adjournment to file

the said application.

On filing of the said application today itself or on next

working day, Issue notice of the appeal and application to

the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer.

AE(B) is directed to appear in person alongwith entire

record of the proceedings, status report and reply of the

appeal on date fixed. Record be deposited immediately in

the Tribunal.


Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 707/18 05.10.2018

Present : Sh. G.R. Verma, counsel for appellant.


29.12.2017 regarding property bearing No.F-235, Village

Tekhand, Pandit Mohalla, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi

alleging unauthorized construction in the shape of ground

floor (half portion) on front side and shuttering part first floor

(half partition on front and rest of building rear side is old

and occupied.

It is submitted that the property of the appellant is

having bearing No.235 whereas the impugned order has

been passed against the property No.236, however,

respondent officials intends to demolish the property of the

appellant. The appellant came to know about the demolition

order on 19.09.2018 after moving of the application.

Application for condonation of delay has also been filed.

Issue notice of the appeal and application to the






Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 711/18 05.10.2018

Present : Sh. A.K. Singh, counsel for appellant.

This appeal has been filed on the basis of status

report filed by the SDMC in civil suit No.1520/17 pending

before Sr. Civil Judge, Saket where it is mentioned that the

property has been booked on 12.03.2017 for unauthorized

construction u/s 343 of the DMC Act. The show cause

notice has been issued in the name of Sher Singh Rana.

No order of sealing / demolition has been filed. The

appellant was defendant No.2 in the said civil suit.

In these circumstances, issue notice of the appeal

and application to the respondent through concerned Chief

Law Officer. AE(B) is directed to appear in person

alongwith entire record of the proceedings, status report and

reply of the appeal on date fixed. Record be deposited

immediately in the Tribunal.


Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 577/18 Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith...

Documents

Transcript of A.No. 577/18 Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith...