Disposed

Nawab Ganj Residents Welfare Association v. MCD and Ors.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2011W.P.(C)/2191/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition for mandamus against the MCD regarding illegal constructions. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to be heard in pending appeals, directed the MCD to remove unauthorized constructions by May 31, 2011 or within two months of interim order vacation, and directed disposal of a regularization application by March 31, 2011. Both the writ petition and a con

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was granted liberty to be heard in pending appeals; MCD directed to demolish unauthorized constructions by May 31, 2011 and dispose of regularization application by March 31, 2011.

Nawab Ganj Residents Welfare Association Vs MCD and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:30.08.2024 17:10:59 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

¶3

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.

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE^{RAJTV SAHAI ENDLAW}

¶6

ORDER ' 02.02.2011

¶7

l. The petitioner seeks^{mandamus againstthe respondentMCDto take} action with respect to^{illegaland unauthorized constructionsin properties} no.$22r,22,23, 9221-22,9632-34,^{9137, 9775, 9679, 9772, 9694 & 9139 in} the colony ofNawabganj,^Delhi.

¶8

Z. Notice of the petition was^{issued and the respondent MCD and the} SHO, PS Bara Hindu^{Rao, Delhi directedto ensurethat no unauthorized} consffuction takes^{place in the aforesaid properties.The respondentMCD} has since filed a Status Report^{dated4th May, 2010 wherein the actiontaken} with respect to each of^{the properties is stated. It is also stated therein that} ,"-'\ owners/occupants of some of the^{propertieshave approachedthe Appellate} Tribunal, MCD and owing^{to interim orderswherein no further actioncan be} taken. The counsel for the^{respondent MCD states that qua other properties} where there is no interim^{order, the appropriate actionof demolition shall be}

¶9

2ts

¶10

¶11

taken. It is stated that sealing has already been^{affected with respect to the}

¶12

said properties.

¶13

\Da

¶14

The 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^{applicationfor regulaization of the} rcg:ularizable unauthorrzed consffuction has also been moved on 1" October, 2010.

¶15

In the aforesaid scenario. the writ petition is disposed of with the

¶16

following directions: -

¶17

¶18

(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;

¶19

IS,

¶20

(ii) The respondent MCD is directed^{to take actionfor removalof} unauthorized consffuction^{withrespect toproperties} 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 takenwithintwo months of} vacation of stay. The^{concernedExecutive Engineeris made} personally responsible for compliance^{of the order.}

¶21

(iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to^{approachthe 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.}

¶22

(iv) The respondent MCD is directed^{to disposeof the application} for regulaization on or before 3l't^{March,2011.Thepetitioner} shall also have a right to be^{heard in opposition to the} regulaization application and be^{servedwith a noticeof the} date of hearine therefor.

4ts

1,(

Contempt case^{has been filed averring violation of the order dated6tn} April, 2010 in the writ^{petition directingthe respondents MCDand Police to} ensure that no fuither^{unauthorized consfiuctiontakesplace. No notice has} been issued as yet. However^{the counsel for the alleged contemnorsappears} on advance notice and^{states that the properties were inspectedon 25'h} October, 2010 and the^{seals earlieraffixed were found to be intact and no}

¶27

further ongoing consffuction^{was found.}

¶28

In view of the order aforesaid^{in the writ petition, it is not deemed}

¶29

expedient to entertain^{the conternpt petition.}

¶30

The writ petition as well as^{the contemptpetition are disposed of with}

¶31

no order as to costs.to costs.costs.
\ ---5--
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
FEBRUARY 02,2011 /./
pp.. "/

¶32

no order as to costs.to costs.costs.

¶33

¶34

J/J

Nawab Ganj Residents Welfare Association v. MCD and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawab Ganj Residents Welfare Association v. MCD and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venu Gopal Vs University of Delhi and Ors.

Dev Dutt Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Union of India through the Secretary Vs Shri Daulat Singh Chauhan

Ram Jatan Paswan and Ors. Vs UOI and Ors.

Vibhav Vikrant Vs Chairman,Ntro and Anr.

Unique Innovation Pvt. Ltd. Vs MCD

Rajender Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Venu Gopal Vs University of Delhi and Ors.

Shri Bawa Singh & Ors. Vs MCD & Ors.

Arun Kumar Jain Vs U.O.I & Ors.

Zuned Khan Vs Amity University and Anr.

M/S Hindustan Associates Engin Vs K.K.Aggarwal & Ors.

Arjun Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs Industrial Development Bank of India [Idbi] & Ors.