This appeal challenges a Municipal Corporation's approval of a change of use and construction violations. The Court held that since the user was regularized and the corporation was satisfied on validity, the appeal was disposed of and costs were waived.
Costs imposed by the single judge were waived; appeal disposed of.
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.
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 329/2016
Date of decision: 5th October, 2016
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Rajesh Tyagi, Advocate versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS
..... Respondent Through: Ms.Puja Kalra, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Abhishek Kumar Rao and Ms.Bavya Bharti, Advocates for R-3
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Confronted with the position that the respondent No.1-Corporation has approved the application of the respondent No.3-Company for change of user vide permission/approval dated 30th March, 2016, learned counsel for the appellant states, on instructions, that he would challenge the order dated 30th March, 2016 in a fresh writ petition. It is submitted that the order granting permission/approval dated 30th March, 2016 was passed by the
LPA 329/2016
Page 1 of 6
Corporation after the impugned order dated 21st March, 2016 was passed by the single Judge in W.P. (C) No.806/2016, Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors .
that the appellant does not require the permission of the Appellate Court to file a writ petition impugning the order granting approval/permission dated 30th March, 2016. He states that the petitioner is a rabble-rouser and had filed W.P. (C) No.806/2016 to harass and harrow his brother. There are multiple litigations inter se the two brothers.
LPA 329/2016
Page 2 of 6
order granting approval/permission dated 30th March, 2016. The said order has been passed after the order dated 21st March, 2016 was passed by the single Judge.
the following five contentions.
LPA 329/2016
Page 3 of 6
LPA 329/2016
Page 4 of 6
height of the stilt parking is 2.40 mtrs. and has not been breached, we are not impressed with the argument raised.
LPA 329/2016
Page 5 of 6
appellant’s brother, states that he would not like the appellant to be burdened with costs and the same may be waived. This statement is taken on record and the cost imposed by the impugned order is waived.
The appeal is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
OCTOBER 05, 2016 NA/sv
LPA 329/2016
6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant must pay costs imposed by the lower court given the respondents' undertaking not to seek recovery.
Whether the appeal requires examination given the regularization of change of user in subsequent proceedings.
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
SANJIV KHANNA
SUNITA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
