Allowed

Ishrat Aadil v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/12805/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application seeking deletion of paragraph 3 in a prior order which incorrectly stated petitioner's property was encroached upon. The error was a clerical mistake corrected by deleting the erroneous paragraph and disposing of the application.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of paragraph 3 of the order dated 12.09.2024 regarding alleged encroachment on petitioner's property; application disposed of.

Ishrat Aadil Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~42

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12805/2024

¶4

ISHRAT AADIL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.Amit Srivastava with Ms.Uzma and Mr.Manish panchal, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Abhinav Sharma with Mr.Mahender Shukla, Advocates for R-1/MCD (Through VC) Mr.Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms.Ira Singh and Mr.Utsav Pokhriyal, Advocates for R-2 & 4.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶9

O R D E R % 09.10.2024

¶10

C.M.No.59947/2024

¶11

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of

¶13

C.M.No.59944/2024

¶14

Present application has been filed by the petitioner/applicant seeking deletion of paragraph 3 of the order dated 12^th September, 2024 wherein this Court had disposed of the underlying writ with a direction to the STF to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 22^nd July, 2024.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the factum as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order that the applicant/petitioner’s property was adjoining the subject property and thereby respondent no.6 has encroached

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 08:49:09

¶17

upon the applicant/petitioner’s property as well by breaking the walls of the applicant/petitioner’s property was mentioned at paragraph no.19 of ground D of the present writ petition inadvertently owing to a mistake on behalf of the applicant/petitioner’s counsel.

¶18

He states that the applicant/petitioner had intended to submit that the respondent no. 5 had encroached upon property belonging to the DDA and not upon the applicant/petitioner’s property. He submits that it was this statement of facts only that was brought to the attention of the STF vide the representation dated 22^nd July, 2024.

¶19

He states that the error made in the petition was purely unintentional and without any mala fide intention.

¶20

Issue notice.

¶21

Mr.Abhinav Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and Mr.Mukul Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 4.

¶22

Keeping in view the aforesaid averments in the application, paragraph 3 of the order dated 12^th September, 2024 is deleted and the order dated 12^th September, 2024 shall now read as under:-

¶23

“W.P.(C) 12805/2024 & CM APPLs. 53391-53392/2024

¶24

ISHRAT AADIL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Srivastava, Advocate with Ms. Uzma Quraishi, Mr. Jamshed Alam and Mr. Manish Panchal, Advocates.

¶25

versus

¶26

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms. Ira Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4.

¶27

CORAM:

¶28

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 12.09.2024

1. Present public interest petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to demolish the purported illegal and unauthorised construction allegedly raised by the respondent No.6 at the property bearing no. XV/3551, Dariba Pan, Pahar Ganj, Delhi–110055, ad measuring approximately 80 sq. yards.

¶33

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the subject property belongs to DDA, upon which the respondent No.6 has encroached and commenced construction without obtaining any sanction plan or necessary approvals. He further states that the construction is being carried out by using substandard materials and the structure also poses a risk to the neighbours.

¶34

3. He further states that the petitioner has raised his grievance with the respondent authorities by filing a representation dated 22^nd July, 2024, but no action has been taken on the same. He contends that the respondent authorities are acting in collusion with respondent No.6 by protecting him and taking no action against the said illegal construction.

¶35

4. Learned counsel for STF, who appears on advance notice, states that the petitioner’s representation is under consideration.

¶36

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid, present writ petition and applications are disposed of with a direction to the STF to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 22^nd July, 2024 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. If any action is required to be taken in pursuance to the said decision, the same shall also be taken expeditiously.

¶37

6. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶38

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶39

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 Js”

¶40

10. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

¶41

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶43

OCTOBER 9, 2024 KA

¶44

Ishrat Aadil v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishrat Aadil v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Rajpal Vs Adm (Notification) & Anr.

Dilip Jha Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Rina Ghoshal Vs the State Trading Corporation of India Limited

Sh Ravinder Singh & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sanjeev Kaushik Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Ausil Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S M.D. Overseas Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life through Its General Secretary Vs Union of India & Ors.

Delhi Waqf Board Employees Association & Anr. Vs & Ors.

Jupiter Pharmaceuticals Vs Union of India and Another

Central Board of Secondary Education Vs St. Columbus School and Anr.

Amita Sinha Vs Sneha Srivastava & Ors.

Mrs. Viveka Khanna Vs India Sme Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Isarc) and Anr.