The Court held the writ petition premature as the respondent had not initiated any action for demolition of the subject properties. The petitioner undertook not to carry out unauthorized construction.
The writ petition was disposed of as premature; the petitioner undertook not to carry out unauthorized construction.
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.
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH CHAND BANSAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, Advocate
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
%
O R D E R 31.05.2017
petitioner shall not carry out any unauthorised construction in the subject property. The statement is taken on record.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
MAY 31, 2017 rsk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking direction to not interfere in the petitioner's possession and/or demolish specific plots is maintainable in the present facts.
Suresh Chand Bansal
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
J.R. Midha
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
