Dismissed

Ananya Roy v. Lt. Governor Gnctd & Ors.

Delhi HC20 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/9756/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this order, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's application seeking to initiate perjury proceedings against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Court accepted the State's explanation that demolition was completed and the property inspected as vacant, rejecting the electricity bill as insufficient proof of occupancy prima facie.

What did the court decide?

Direction to initiate perjury proceedings against Municipal Corporation of Delhi was not granted.

Ananya Roy Vs Lt. Governor Gnctd & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9756/2022

¶4

ANANYA ROY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Umesh Sharma with Mr.Narendra Singh Hooda nad Ms.Ginitpal Kaur Bal, Advocates. versus

¶5

LT. GOVERNOR GNCTD & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Manu Chaturvedi, Advocate for MCD (Through VC) with Ms.Devika Singh and Mr.Roy Chowdhury, Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Vashishta with Ms. Harshita Rai and Mr. Prince Pathak, Advs. for DDA. Mr.Udit Malik, ASC for GNCTD.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶7

O R D E R % 28.05.2024

¶8

C.M.No.32434/2024

¶9

Present application has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to initiate perjury proceedings against the respondent no.4/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the property in question i.e. B-1/110, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi stands as it is and the officials of respondent no.4/MCD had misled this Court and made a false statement that violative parts of the said property had been demolished.

¶11

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 30/05/2024 at 12:25:31

¶12

He states that the respondent no.4/MCD on the last date of hearing i.e. 20^th February, 2024 had submitted a misleading statement that no fresh construction was being done in the subject property and that no one was residing in the subject property. He emphasises that the consumption of electricity on the said floor of the building clearly shows that the said house is very much occupied and the officials of MCD have made a false statement with intent to mislead this Court.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for MCD has drawn this Court’s attention to the Status Report dated 15^th February, 2024 filed by the MCD, wherein it has been averred as under:-

¶14

“7. That accordingly demolition programme on the subject property was fixed for 10.05.2023 and on this date demolition action has been taken. That during the course of the demolition action the RCC roof slab/penal has been demolished and cut down with the help of gas cutter along with the walls of the said floor were also demolished. Copy of the photographs of the demolition action dated 10.05.2023 are hereby annexed as ANNEXURE-B (colly).

¶15

xxx xxx xxx

¶16

9. That it is relevant to mention here that the property in question was again inspected by area JE(B) on 07.02.2024 and during the inspection, it was noticed that no reconstruction has been carried out at the site and property is lying in the same position as it was after the demolition action. Copy of the photographs of the suit property taken at the time of inspection dated 07.02.2024 are hereby annexed as ANNEXURE-D (colly).”

¶17

He further states that the electricity bill relied upon by the petitioner in the present application shows that base fees has been levied – which is levied even if no electricity is consumed.

¶18

This Court is in agreement with the statement made by learned counsel for the MCD that action in accordance with law has been taken by the MCD and that the electricity bill annexed by the petitioner does not prima facie show that the property in question is occupied.

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 30/05/2024 at 12:25:31

¶21

Consequently, the present application is dismissed.

¶22

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶24

MAY 28, 2024 KA

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 30/05/2024 at 12:25:31

Ananya Roy v. Lt. Governor Gnctd & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananya Roy v. Lt. Governor Gnctd & 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

Raj Kumar Shanna @ Shandilya Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Satinder Pal Singh Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Mohd. Nomaan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (through Commissioner) & Ors.

Saleem Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Khushi Pratap Singh Vs Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.

Sh. Sumeet Sharma Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

M/S Indochem and Polymers Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 207 Zone 11

Chaman Lal Bhambri Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) and Anr.

Raghav Awasthi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gopesh Mehrotra and Ors. Vs UOI and Ors.

Ucms Teachers Association Vs Union of India & Ors.

Lalit Kumar Banga Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.

Shri Arun Sankhwal Vs Shri Anoop Gupta & Anr.

Bhisham Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.