in the court of ms. poonam chaudhary : addl ...mcdonline.gov.in/at/judgementorder/23.pdfkhasra no....
Post on 03-Feb-2021
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 1
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM CHAUDHARY : ADDL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM PRESIDING OFFICER, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, M.C.D, DELHI. APPEAL NOS. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019
SH. AZHAR HUSAIN, S/O SH. HUSSAIN ZAMIN, R/O FLAT NO. A-5, SECOND FLOOR, PLOT NO. F-221, FRONT SIDE, KHASRA NO. 225, LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI-110030. APPELLANT
VS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS DY. COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI RESPONDENT
APPEAL NO. 934/2018 SH. ANISH PAL, S/O SH. RANBIR SINGH, R/O FLAT NO. A-8, THIRD FLOOR, PLOT NO. F-221, FRONT SIDE, KHASRA NO. 225, LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI-110030. ...APPELLANT VS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS DY. COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI ...RESPONDENT APPEAL NO. 935/2018 SH. B. P. SHUKLA, S/O LATE SH. BASUDEO, R/O FLAT NO. A-7, THIRD FLOOR,
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 2
PLOT NO. F-221, FRONT SIDE, KHASRA NO. 225, LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI-110030. ...APPELLANT VS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS DY. COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI ...RESPONDENT APPEAL NO. 936/2018
SH. SURESH CHANDRA BHATT, S/O LATE SH. JAMUNA DUTT BHATT, R/O FLAT NO. A-3, FIRST FLOOR, PLOT NO. F-221, FRONT SIDE, KHASRA NO. 225, LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI-110030. ...APPELLANT VS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS DY. COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI ...RESPONDENT APPEAL NO. 937/2018 SH. SUSHIL MESSY SIONEE, S/O SH. PREM MESSEY PARDESI, R/O FLAT NO. A-1, UPPER GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO. F-221, FRONT SIDE, KHASRA NO. 225, LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI-110030. ...APPELLANT VS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS DY. COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI ...RESPONDENT
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 3
APPEAL NO. 938/2018 SH. JYOTI SHARMA, W/O SH. DILEEP KUMAR MAMDEO R/O FLAT NO. A-4, FIRST FLOOR, PLOT NO. F-221, FRONT SIDE, KHASRA NO. 225, LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI-110030. ...APPELLANT VS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS DY. COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI ...RESPONDENT DATE OF FILING APPEALS 21.12.2018 DATE OF ORDER 16.01.2020 APPEAL NO. 99/2018 1. SMT. SARLA SEJWAL,
W/O LATE RAVINDER SEJWAL, R/O F-221, KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
2. SHRI SANJAY SEJWAL
S/O PREET SINGH R/P F-204, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
3. SHRI BHISHAM KUMAR
S/O SHRI AMAR JEET SINGH R/O E-43, PARYAVARAN COMPLEX, SAIDULAJAB, DELHI – 110030
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 4
4. SHRI SUSHIL MASSEY SIONEE, S/O SHRI PREM MASSEY PARDESI
5. SMT. NALINI MASSEY SIONEE
D/O SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR GHATGE BOTH R/O F-221, UPPER GROUND FLOOR (GROUND FLOOR), KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
6. MRS. JYOTI SHARMA, W/O SHRI DILEEP KUMAR NAMDEO R/O F-221, FIRST FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
7. MRS. ANITA SURESH,
W/O SHRI SURESH CHANDRA BHATT 8. SHRI SURESH CHANDRA BHATT
S/O LATE JAMUNA DUTT BHATT BOTH R/O F-221, FIRST FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
9. MR. AZHAR HUSAIN
S/O MR. HUSSAIN ZAMIN R/O F-221, SECOND FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
10. SMT. RENU SHUKLA
W/O SHRI R. P. SHUKLA 11. SHRI B. P. SHUKLA,
S/O LATE BASU DEO SHUKLA, BOTH R/O F-221, THIRD FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
12. MRS. SUGANDHA CHATURVEDI
W/O MR. ANISH PAL
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 5
13. SHRI ANISH PAL
S/O MR. RANBIR SINGH BOTH R/O F-221, THIRD FLOOR KHASRA NO.225 VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI APPELLANT
VS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110022 RESPONDENT
DATE OF FILING APPEAL 08.12.2019
DATE OF ORDER 16.01.2020 APPEAL NO: 100/2018 1. SMT. SARLA SEJWAL,
W/O LATE RAVINDER SEJWAL, R/O F-221, KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
2. SHRI SANJAY SEJWAL
S/O PREET SINGH R/P F-204, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
3. SHRI BHISHAM KUMAR
S/O SHRI AMAR JEET SINGH R/O E-43, PARYAVARAN COMPLEX, SAIDULAJAB, DELHI – 110030
4. SHRI SUSHIL MASSEY SIONEE, S/O SHRI PREM MASSEY PARDESI
5. SMT. MALINI MASSEY SIONEE
D/O SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR GHATGE BOTH R/O F-221, UPPER GROUND FLOOR
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 6
(GROUND FLOOR), KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
6. MRS. JYOTI SHARMA, W/O SHRI DILEEP KUMAR NAMDEO R/O F-221, FIRST FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
7. MRS. ANITA SURESH,
W/O SHRI SURESH CHANDRA BHATT 8. SHRI SURESH CHANDRA BHATT
S/O LATE JAMUNA DUTT BHATT BOTH R/O F-221, FIRST FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
9. MR. AZHAR HUSAIN
S/O MR. HUSSAIN ZAMIN R/O F-221, SECOND FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
10. SMT. RENU SHUKLA
W/O SHRI R. P. SHUKLA 11. SHRI B. P. SHUKLA,
S/O LATE BASU DEO SHUKLA, BOTH R/O F-221, THIRD FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
12. MRS. SUGANDHA CHATURVEDI
W/O MR. ANISH PAL
13. SHRI ANISH PAL S/O MR. RANBIR SINGH BOTH R/O F-221, THIRD FLOOR KHASRA NO.225 VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI ...APPELLANT
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 7
VS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 ...RESPONDENT DATE OF FILING APPEAL 08.02.2019 DATE OF ORDER 16.01.2020 APPEAL NO. 101/2018 1. SMT. SARLA SEJWAL,
W/O LATE RAVINDER SEJWAL, R/O F-221, KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
2. SHRI SANJAY SEJWAL
S/O PREET SINGH R/P F-204, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
3. SHRI BHISHAM KUMAR
S/O SHRI AMAR JEET SINGH R/O E-43, PARYAVARAN COMPLEX, SAIDULAJAB, DELHI – 110030
4. SHRI SUSHIL MASSEY SIONEE, S/O SHRI PREM MASSEY PARDESI
5. SMT. NALINI MASSEY SIONEE
D/O SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR GHATGE BOTH R/O F-221, UPPER GROUND FLOOR (GROUND FLOOR), KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
6. MRS. JYOTI SHARMA, W/O SHRI DILEEP KUMAR NAMDEO R/O F-221, FIRST FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI,
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 8
NEW DELHI 7. MRS. ANITA SURESH,
W/O SHRI SURESH CHANDRA BHATT 8. SHRI SURESH CHANDRA BHATT
S/O LATE JAMUNA DUTT BHATT BOTH R/O F-221, FIRST FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
9. MR. AZHAR HUSAIN
S/O MR. HUSSAIN ZAMIN R/O F-221, SECOND FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
10. SMT. RENU SHUKLA
W/O SHRI R. P. SHUKLA 11. SHRI B. P. SHUKLA,
S/O LATE BASU DEO SHUKLA, BOTH R/O F-221, THIRD FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
12. MRS. SUGANDHA CHATURVEDI
W/O MR. ANISH PAL
13. SHRI ANISH PAL S/O MR. RANBIR SINGH BOTH R/O F-221, THIRD FLOOR KHASRA NO.225 VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI ....APPELLANT
VS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002. ....RESPONDENT
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 9
DATE OF FILING APPEAL 08.02.2019 DATE OF ORDER 16.01.2020 APPEAL NO. 102/2018 1. SMT. SARLA SEJWAL,
W/O LATE RAVINDER SEJWAL, R/O F-221, KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
2. SHRI SANJAY SEJWAL
S/O PREET SINGH R/P F-204, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
3. SHRI BHISHAM KUMAR
S/O SHRI AMAR JEET SINGH R/O E-43, PARYAVARAN COMPLEX, SAIDULAJAB, DELHI – 110030
4. SHRI SUSHIL MASSEY SIONEE, S/O SHRI PREM MASSEY PARDESI
5. SMT. MALINI MASSEY SIONEE
D/O SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR GHATGE BOTH R/O F-221, UPPER GROUND FLOOR (GROUND FLOOR), KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
6. MRS. JYOTI SHARMA, W/O SHRI DILEEP KUMAR NAMDEO R/O F-221, FIRST FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
7. MRS. ANITA SURESH,
W/O SHRI SURESH CHANDRA BHATT
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 10
8. SHRI SURESH CHANDRA BHATT S/O LATE JAMUNA DUTT BHATT BOTH R/O F-221, FIRST FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
9. MR. AZHAR HUSAIN
S/O MR. HUSSAIN ZAMIN R/O F-221, SECOND FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
10. SMT. RENU SHUKLA
W/O SHRI R. P. SHUKLA 11. SHRI B. P. SHUKLA,
S/O LATE BASU DEO SHUKLA, BOTH R/O F-221, THIRD FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
12. MRS. SUGANDHA CHATURVEDI
W/O MR. ANISH PAL
13. SHRI ANISH PAL S/O MR. RANBIR SINGH BOTH R/O F-221, THIRD FLOOR KHASRA NO.225 VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI ...APPELLANT
VS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110022 ...RESPONDENT DATE OF FILING APPEAL 08.02.2019 DATE OF ORDER 16.01.2020
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 11
APPEAL NO. 103/2018 1. SMT. SARLA SEJWAL,
W/O LATE RAVINDER SEJWAL, R/O F-221, KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
2. SHRI SANJAY SEJWAL
S/O PREET SINGH R/P F-204, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
3. SHRI BHISHAM KUMAR
S/O SHRI AMAR JEET SINGH R/O E-43, PARYAVARAN COMPLEX, SAIDULAJAB, DELHI – 110030
4. SHRI SUSHIL MASSEY SIONEE, S/O SHRI PREM MASSEY PARDESI
5. SMT. MALINI MASSEY SIONEE
D/O SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR GHATGE BOTH R/O F-221, UPPER GROUND FLOOR (GROUND FLOOR), KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
6. MRS. JYOTI SHARMA, W/O SHRI DILEEP KUMAR NAMDEO R/O F-221, FIRST FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
7. MRS. ANITA SURESH,
W/O SHRI SURESH CHANDRA BHATT 8. SHRI SURESH CHANDRA BHATT
S/O LATE JAMUNA DUTT BHATT BOTH R/O F-221, FIRST FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 12
9. MR. AZHAR HUSAIN
S/O MR. HUSSAIN ZAMIN R/O F-221, SECOND FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
10. SMT. RENU SHUKLA
W/O SHRI R. P. SHUKLA 11. SHRI B. P. SHUKLA,
S/O LATE BASU DEO SHUKLA, BOTH R/O F-221, THIRD FLOOR KHASRA NO.225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI
12. MRS. SUGANDHA CHATURVEDI
W/O MR. ANISH PAL
13. SHRI ANISH PAL S/O MR. RANBIR SINGH BOTH R/O F-221, THIRD FLOOR KHASRA NO.225 VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI ...APPELLANT
VS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-11002 ...RESPONDENT DATE OF FILING APPEAL 08.02.2019 DATE OF ORDER 16.01.2020 APPEAL NO. 104/2018 SMT. SARLA SEJWAL, W/O LATE RAVINDER SEJWAL R/O F-221, KHASRA NO. 225, VILLAGE LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI ...APPELLANT
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 13
VS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002. ...RESPONDENT DATE OF FILING APPEAL : 08.02.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 16.01.2020
ORDER
1. Vide this common order, I proceed to decide appeals No.933/18, 934/18,
935/18, 936/18, 937/18 & 938/18 filed against order of demolition dated
24.10.2017 passed by AE(B), Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, South Zone in respect
of property falling in Khasra No.225, Village Lado Sarai, New Delhi. I also
proceed to decide Appeals No. 99/18, 100/18, 101/18, 102/18, 103/18 and
104/18 vide this common order as they relate to same property Khasra
no.225, Lado Sarai.
2. Appeal No.99/19 has been filed against order of demolition dated
15.12.2017 passed by AE(B), Sh. Sanjeev Jain in respect of property
No.F-221, Khasra No. 225, Lado Sarai, New Delhi. Appeal No.100/18 has
been filed against order of demolition dated 19.01.2018 passed by AE(B),
Ramesh Kumar in respect of property No. F-221, Khasra No. 225, , Lado
Sarai, New Delhi. Appeal No.101/18 has been filed against order of
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 14
sealing passed by Dy. Commissioner, South Zone in respect of property
No.F-221, Khasra No 225, Lado Sarai, New Delhi.
Appeal No.102/18 has been filed against order of sealing passed by Dy.
Commissioner, South Zone in respect of property No.F-221, Khasra No.
225, Lado Sarai, New Delhi. Appeal No.103/18 has been filed against
order of demolition dated 24.10.2017 in respect of property No.F-221,
Khasra No. 225, Lado Sarai, New Delhi.
Appeal No.104/18 has been filed in respect of sealing order against
property No.F-225, Lado Sarai, New Delhi passed by Dy. Commissioner,
Vishwender.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the appeal are that the
appellants are the owners of the properties in question on the plot No. 221
Khasra No. 225, Lado Sarai, New Delhi.
4. The averments made are that the appellants purchased different flats in
the property No. F-221 Khasra No. 225 situated in extended Lal Dora of
Village Lado Sarai, Mehrauli, Delhi. It is also alleged that neither show
cause notice nor impugned demolition-sealing orders were served on the
appellants neither opportunity of personal hearing was afforded.
5. It is also submitted that the impugned order were issued by the
respondent in the name of one Ravi Sejwal, who was never the owner and
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 15
landlord of the property in question. It is further stated that the appellants
were never served with show cause notice. The appellant had applied for
compounding of the existing structure, but the respondent refused the
same. It is also alleged that the constructions in the property are very old
and they fall in Lal Dora area. It is also stated that no Show Cause Notice,
demolition Notice, or show cause notice u/s 345A was ever served on the
appellants for unauthorised construction. It is also alleged that the
impugned orders are bad in law as the appellants have not raised any new
contraction. The action of the respondent is violative of mandatory
provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice as no opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the appellants.
6. Notice of the appeal was issued to respondent who filed the status
report and record. Status report was filed stating that respondent has
taken necessary punitive actions against the unauthorized construction
in the property under reference as the property in question was booked
thrice vide file no. (1) 534/UC/B-II/SZ/2017; (2) 624/UC/B-II/SZ/2017
dated 07.02.2017, and (3) 26/UC/B-II/SZ/2018 dated 12.01.2018, on the
ground of unauthorized construction. Further action is under
contemplation and will be taken in due course of time as per policy of
the Department. It is also stated that as per record service of show
cause notices issued u/s 343/344 of the DMC Act, was pasted at site.
However, no proof of service by pasting is available on record. It is
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 16
further stated that as per record sealing show cause notice were also
not served upon the appellant. As regards regularization of the property
of the applicant, it is submitted an application for the same, which is
under process.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for appellant and respondent and perused
the record.
8. It is contended by Ld Counsel for appellant that the impugned order has
been passed in violation of the statutory provisions of DMC Act and
principles of natural justice as such it is liable to be set aside. It is also
stated that the impugned order lack in material particulars as neither the
details nor measurement and extent of alleged unauthorized
constructions, have been mentioned therein.
9. On the other hand the Ld Counsel for respondent submitted that as the
appellant failed to show that the construction is authorized and as per
the sanctioned plan the same is liable to be demolished. It is further
stated property was sealed as the conditions mentioned u/s 343 and
344 DMC Act exists.
10. It is to be noted that the impugned orders have been passed by the
quasi-judicial authority. It is a settled law that quasi-judicial authority is
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 17
bound to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the principles of
natural justice. The cardinal principle of natural justice is that no one
can be condemned without notice and an opportunity of being heard.
This is not a mere formality but mandatory before passing any order.
The quasi-judicial authority was thus bound to conduct its proceedings
in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Justice should not
only to be done but the same should also appear to have been done.
11. It is also to be noted that demolition of a building or apart thereof is a
serious matter and entails loss of money. It also leads to occupants
being rendered homeless. Thus the legislature in its wisdom provided
that notice of demolition must be to delivered to the person concerned
and not merely served in the manner notices are served under section
444 of the DMC Act.
12. It is to further be noted section 343 of the Act provides the procedure for
taking any action of demolition in case of unauthorized construction. It
provides that where erection of any building or execution of any work
has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in
contravention of any condition subject to which sanction has been
accorded or any contravention of any provisions of the act or bye laws,
then the Commissioner makes an order directing that such erection or
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 18
work has been commenced or is being carried on or has been
complied.
13. Proviso to Clause-1 of Section 343 (1) of the Act specifically provides
that no order of demolition shall be made unless the person concerned
has been given notice of showing cause why such order shall not be
made. The service of show cause notice on the persons concerned is
thus mandatory. In this regard it has been held in Mahender Singh and
Others Vs MCD 34(1988) DLT 118 by the Hon’ble High Court as under:-
“The services of show cause notice on the person concerned
before passing the demolition order is mandatory. There is no
question of any prejudice being caused or not being caused that
a mandatory provisions has not been complied with. As it has not
been done, it must be held that the whole proceedings regarding
passing of the demolition order are illegal and on this ground
alone the impugned demolition order and the appellate order are
liable to be set aside.”
14. It is also well settled law that before taking any action under section 345-A
of the DMC Act, it is incumbent upon the respondent to serve the show
cause notice upon the person concerned and to afford him an opportunity
of hearing as sealing of property affects the civil rights of the citizens. The
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 19
law is well settled that even in administrative proceedings which involves
civil consequences, the doctrine of fairness must held to be applicable. In
this regard, it has been held in AIR 1981 SC 136 S.L. Kapur Vs.
Jagmohan, AIR 1984 SC 127, Liberty Oil Mills Vs. Union of India, that
principles of natural justice demands that a party should be heard before
order adversely affecting or entailing civil consequences is passed.
15. As regards the provision of a Section 345A of the DMC Act, 1957 it was
held by Hon’ble High Court in Ahuja Property Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. MCD
42 (1990) DLT 474 that although it is true that u/s 345A there is no
provision for any show cause notice being given before any action is taken
by the authorities under that provision, however, since the sealing of a
property may effects civil rights, principles of natural justice would be read
into Section 345A, which would require a show cause notice being issued.
However, for a small duration it may be, before any action u/s 345A, is
taken.
16. It is to be noted that in 2001 AD (Delhi) 911 Masonic Club Vs. MCD &
another, it was held that notice was not properly served. There was no
specific mention as to unauthorized portion, area of unauthorized portion
and date of construction. It was held by Hon’ble High Court that such a
notice is no notice in the eyes of law. Since, the premises were sealed
without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the property was directed
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 20
to be desealed with the liberty to the respondent to give notice in
accordance with the law.
17. Thus, in proceedings u/s 345 (A) of the DMC Act 1957, quasi0judicial
authority has to also follow the principles of natural justice. In this regard it
has also been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In case of J. T.
(India) Exports Vs. Union of India & Another 94 (2001) DLT 301 (FB) as
under :
“These Principles ware well settled. The first and foremost
principle is what is commonly known as audi-alteram-partem rule.
It says that none should be condemned unheard. Notices is the
first limb of this principle. It must be précised and un-ambiguous.
It should apprise the party determinately the case he has to meet.
Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable
him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the
kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed against
the person absentia becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but
essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before
any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most
important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved
rule of fair play.
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 21
Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid
down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights
of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be
adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial authority while making an
order affecting these rights. These rules are intended to prevent
such authority from doing injustice.”
18. In view of these above judicial pronouncements, it was incumbent upon
the respondent to serve a show cause notice and order upon the
appellants. Admittedly, in the instant cases show cause notice u/s 343/344
of the Act were pasted at site but no proof of pasting is available on
record and the sealing show cause notice were not served on appellant.
Thus as show case notice were not served upon the appellants and no
opportunity of being heard had been afforded to them , under these
circumstances, the sealing and demolition orders are bad in law and
same are liable to be set aside.
19. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside. The appeals are
remanded back to the quasi judicial authority to decide it afresh within a
month preferably. The respondent is directed to deseal the properties in
question falling in Property No. F-221, Khasra No. 225, Lado Sarai, New
Delhi-110030 within 2 weeks of the date of this order. However, as the
appellants are now aware of demolition and sealing proceedings, the
impugned demolition and sealing order will be treated as show cause
-
Appeal nos. 933/2018, 934/2018, 935/2018, 936/2018, 937/2018, 938/2018, 99/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 102/2019, 103/2019 & 104/2019 SMT. SARLA SEJWALVS SDMC Page 22
notices. The appellants are directed to appear before quasi Judicial
Authority on 01.02.2020 at 2.30 pm with reply and documents. The quasi
judicial authority will afford a personal hearing to appellant and decide the
matter afresh preferably within a month vide speaking order which be
communicated to appellants by registered post. Appellants are directed to
maintain status quo regarding construction title and possession of the
properties in question and shall not carry out further unauthorized
construction or repairs or create third party interest therein. A copy of order
and record be sent to the respondent. A copy of order be given Dasti to
Ld. counsel for parties.
20. File be consigned to record room.
(POONAM CHAUDHARY) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal : MCD 16.01.2020
top related