Dismissed
Amarjeet Singh v. the Commissioner ,South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Delhi HCW.P.(C)/11491/2016
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~20
..... Petitioner Through Mr. M.S. Bammi and Ms. Lalima Parashar, Advs.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER ,SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS
..... Respondents Through Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Standing Counsel with Ms. Kamlesh Anand and Ms. Yamini Mittal, Advs for respondent No. 1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
% 05.12.2016
The case of the petitioner is that illegal and unauthorized construction is being permitted at property bearing No. S-221/133, Gali No.s 4 & 5, S-Block, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. The case of the petitioner is that he along with respondents No. 3 & 4 had entered into a collaboration agreement sometime in December, 2015 to construct this property. Disputes had arisen. Admittedly a suit had been filed by the petitioner against private respondents i.e. respondents No. 3 & 4 which is pending before the concerned Court since October, 2016.
At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/SDMC has put his appearance. His submission is that the petitioner himself
being guilty for the illegal perpetuated by the Corporation cannot approach this Court. On this count, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a kachha plan had been handed over to him and he was under a bonafide impression that the site plan had been duly sanctioned qua this property which was not the correct and honest picture. He has been duped into this collaboration agreement.
Be that as it may, further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is also noted which is to the effect that no representation to the said effect has been made before the Corporation. This petition be treated as representation on behalf of the petitioner and the same shall be answered by the respondent Corporation in accordance with law within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.
Petition disposed of.
Order dasti.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
DECEMBER 05, 2016 A
Amarjeet Singh
The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Indermeet Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court