a.no. 401/15 in the interest of justice, last and final...
TRANSCRIPT
A.No. 401/15 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ankur Gupta, counsel for EDMC.
Ld. counsel for respondent seeks some more time to
file the record on the ground that same could not be traced.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for filing the record by the respondent on
10.11.2017.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 216/14 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Ld. counsel for respondent seeks some more time to
file status report regarding the application filed by the
appellant for regularization of the tower.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for filing the status report, failing which concerned
Dy. Commissioner will appear in person.
Put up this matter on 30.08.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 785/15 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for SDMC.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that respondent Dy.
Commissioner had earlier passed the order dated
08.12.2009 regarding sealing of the tower installed at
premises in question, which was challenged by the
appellant vide appeal no. 78/10. Ld. Predecessor of this
Tribunal set aside the said sealing order and remand back
the case to the Quasi Judicial Authority to pass the fresh
sealing order and thereafter the Dy. Commissioner has
passed the order dated 28.05.2012, whereby he has
specifically stated that department has wrongly booked the
tower installed at roof top of property no. B-21, Vishnu
Garden Part-I, New Delhi and if department want to take
sealing action of tower installed at property no. B-20, Vishnu
Garden Part-I, New Delhi (i.e. the tower of appellant) in that
event department to initiate fresh action. He submits that
from the said order it is evident that respondent cannot seal
the tower of the appellant company installed at property no.
B-20, Vishnu Garden Part-I, New Delhi on the basis of the
said order, hence, the action of sealing by the respondent is
illegal / unauthorized.
Ld. counsel for respondent submits that she need
clarification from the department whether any other order
has been passed after remand back of the matter to seal the
tower in question.
Considering the facts and circumstances, I direct the
respondent to file status report by which order tower
installed at property in question was sealed and file
complete record on 05.09.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 469/16 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Kuldeep Vashist, counsel for appellant.
Sh. K.K. Arora, counsel for North DMC
alongwith Sh. Anil Kumar, LI.
Sh. Manoj Kumar, counsel for DSIDC.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant has
deposited the misuse charges as demanded by the
respondent corporation and further ready to give
undertaking that he will not use the property for industrial
purpose.
LI admits that amount has been deposited by the
appellant.
Final arguments heard.
Put up this matter for clarification, if any / orders on
21.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 404/15 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Sameer Abhyankar, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed by the respondent. Copy supplied.
Ld. counsel for appellant seeks time to file the reply
of the status report / depositing the amount.
In the circumstances, case is adjourned to
19.09.2017 for final arguments.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 497/13 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Shivender Mishra, proxy counsel for
appellant.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
None for Monitoring Committee.
Ld. counsel for respondent has filed status report.
Copy supplied. In the status report it is mentioned that the
appellant got premises registered on 30.06.2007 for
professional activity and also paid an amount of Rs 15,360/-
on account of conversion charges for the year 2006-07. In
the report it is also mentioned that there is stay by Hon’ble
High Court against demanding any kind of charges on
processional activity.
Let respondent to file the judgment / order regarding
stay.
Ld. counsel for respondent seeks some more time to
pay the costs.
Put up this matter for filing of judgment / order and
record by the respondent and arguments on 03.10.2017.
AE(B) concerned will appear on the date fixed.
Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for
respondent, as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 821/14 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Vipin Bhaker, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Udit Chawla, proxy counsel for Sh.
Abhishek Kaushik, counsel for SDMC
alongwith Sh. Ravi Kumar, AE(B).
Sh. Ramnish Khanna, counsel for respondent
no.2.
Ld. counsel for appellant has filed objections to
status report filed by the respondent no.1.
Ld. counsel for respondent corporation has filed
status report alongwith calculation of misuse charges. Copy
supplied.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that despite fixing
the date for 17.04.2017 for inspection the inspection has
been carried out only on yesterday and, thus, the order of
this Tribunal has been violated.
AE(B) submits that concerned AE(B) was on medical
leave and only three days prior to today the file has been
handed over to him and he has carried out the inspection.
Hence, it appears that the then AE(B) has not complied the
order of this Tribunal. Therefore, the Commissioner MCD is
directed to initiate vigilance inquiry against the concerned
AE(B) for delectation and further directed to deduct the
costs of Rs. 10,000/- from his salary as directed by this
Tribunal on the previous date of hearing and deposit the
same with the Registry of this Tribunal.
Appellant is at liberty to deposit the charges or file
objections against the status report, if any.
Put up this matter for final arguments on 03.10.2016.
Copy of the order be given dasti to Nodal Officer for
information and compliance.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 947/16 & 948/16 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Shailender Negi, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for North DMC.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is
not contacting him, therefore, he will seek instructions from
the appellant whether he is interested to continuing the
appeal or not.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for final arguments on 03.11.2017.
In the meanwhile respondent is directed to file status
report what action has been taken against the property in
question qua the impugned demolition order and any further
action is required or not.
Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for
respondent, as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 401/14 & 615/13 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Gian Chand, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. S.P. Garg, AE(B).
Sh. Sujoy Gaur, proxy counsel for Sh. Navin
Mata, counsel for Monitoring Committee.
Ld. counsel for respondent has filed status report
which is placed in appeal no. 615/13. Copy supplied. As
per status report the matter was referred to Town Planning
Department and Town Planning Department has reported
that the property is not abutting on Najafgarh Road i.e.
notified mixed land/used street. In the report it is not
mentioned whether the property of appellant is situated on a
non notified road or street or notified road for commercial
purpose, therefore, specific report be filed whether the
property in question is situated on non notified road / street
for commercial purpose. Further, the respondent will file
status report whether there are any other commercial
activity is being run on the road / street, on which appellant’s
property is situated, if so whether they are permitted or not
and if not what action has been taken against those shop
keepers.
Put up this matter for filing of specific status report by
the respondent on 18.09.2017.
Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 1064/13, 1065/13, 1033/12 & 1085/13 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Anil Goswami, proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma / Ms. Nishi Jain, proxy
counsel for Sh. Mohit Sharma /
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for SDMC.
Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that main
counsel is not available and seeks adjournment.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for final arguments on 07.11.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 441/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Rajiv Khosla, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for North DMC.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Ld. counsel for respondent submits that appellant
has filed an application for extension of time to carry out the
rectification in the property in question, for which file has
been sent to Head Quarter and therefore, seeks time to file
the reply of appeal and record.
In the interest of justice, matter is adjourned for filing
reply of the appeal and record by the respondent on
07.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 410/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for MCD.
Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent filed.
Ld. counsel for respondent seeks time to file
vakalatnama, reply of appeal and record.
Put up this matter for filing of vakalatnama, reply of
appeal and record by the respondent on 11.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 404/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Himal Akhtar, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Nishi Jain, proxy counsel for Sh. Mohit
Sharma, counsel for EDMC alongwith Sh. Raj
Bhushan, JLO from EDMC.
Status report has already been filed by the
respondent AE(B). Let copy of the same be supplied to Ld.
counsel for the appellant.
Record has already been filed by the respondent.
Ld. counsel for appellant seeks time to inspect the
record.
Hence, case is adjourned for final arguments on
01.08.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
M.No. 34/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Kailash Sharma, counsel for applicant.
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Vipin Kumar, EE, Sh. Ajay Sinha, AE(B)
and Sh. S.B. Dabi, JLO.
Status report filed by the respondent. Copy supplied.
As per status report the property in question has been
desealed on 30.06.2017.
Ld. counsel for appellant seeks time to verify from the
appellant whether the property in question has been
desealed or not.
In the circumstances case is adjourned to 31.07.2017
for arguments.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 496/16 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Gundeep Singh, proxy counsel for
appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for North DMC.
Ld. counsel for appellant has filed copy of sale deed
of ownership of property alongwith photocopy of G8 receipt
regarding depositing of amount and will file undertaking that
he will use the property in question for residential purpose of
any other purpose as permitted in MPD-2021.
Ld. counsel for the respondent submits that appellant
has deposited the misuse charges.
Final arguments heard.
Put up this matter for clarification, if any, / orders on
24.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 761/16 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Gundeep Singh, proxy counsel for
appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for North DMC.
File taken up on an application for early hearing.
Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that appellant
has deposited the 10 times penalty as demanded by the
respondent.
Let respondent to file status report whether amount
has been deposited or not.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent on the date already fixed i.e. 08.08.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 241/17 & 242/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Vikram Dua, counsel for appellant.
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal / Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for
North DMC alongwith Sh. Basant, LI.
Ld. counsel for respondent submits that record has been
brought and the same will be filed today itself.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Ld. counsel for appellant has filed provisional factory
licence granted by the Factory Licencing Department of MCD on
23.12.2016.
He submits that appellant is ready to give the undertaking
that he will not use the premises in question for Industrial purpose
without obtaining permission from the concerned department for
running industrial activities. He also submits that no show cause
notice was served upon the appellant prior to sealing the property
in question.
On the other hand, Ld. counsel for respondent submits
that the property no.20, Shopping Complex, Milan Cinema,
Karampura was having two shops which were sealed vide sealing
notice dated 19.12.2016 on 20.12.2016 and notice was issued to
Ram Babu. He further submits that since there was no licence for
running factory when the property in question was sealed,
therefore, impugned order is legal.
I have considered the arguments.
Let respondent to file status report whether Industrial
activities which were run by the appellant at the time of sealing of
property can be run in the premises in question or not and
whether appellant is liable to pay any misuse charges, if so what
amount.
For this purpose, the respondent is given liberty to deseal
the property for the purpose of inspection on 10.07.2017 at 2.00
PM and reseal the same after inspection on the same day.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent on 31.08.2017. Copy of calculation charges be
supplied to appellant atleast two weeks prior to the date fixed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 1227/13 to 1236/13 04.07.2017
Present : Counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Ld. counsel for appellant seeks time to file
clarification.
Put up this matter for clarification if any /orders on
09.08.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 635/13 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Bhavya Sethi, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
None for applicants.
Sh. Sujoy Gaur, proxy counsel for Sh. Navin
Mata, counsel for Monitoring Committee.
An application under order 1 rule 10 CPC to implead
the applicants Sh. Kapil Dua and Ors. is pending for
disposal but none has appeared on behalf of applicants.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for filing of reply / arguments on 25.09.2017.
Advance copy of the reply be supplied at least two
weeks prior to the date fixed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 667/13 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Bhavya Sethi, counsel for appellant.
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Sh. Harsh Kohli, counsel for applicants.
Sh. Sujoy Gaur, proxy counsel for Sh. Navin
Mata, counsel for Monitoring Committee.
An application under order 1 rule 10 CPC to implead
the applicants Sh. Kapil Dua and Ors. is pending for
disposal. Copy of the same supplied.
Put up this matter for filing of reply / arguments on
the said application on 25.09.2017.
Advance copy of the reply be supplied at least two
weeks prior to the date fixed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 646/15 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Anil Goswami, proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that main
counsel is not available and seeks time to argue.
In the interest of justice, matter is adjourned for
arguments on 25.09.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 953/16 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Rupesh Sharma, counsel for appellant.
Sh.A.L.Agnihotri, counsel for MCD.
Ld. counsel for appellant seeks some more time on
the ground that he has sought some information from
DSIDC Patparganj regarding the factory of Sh. Jagdish
Singh, in whose name notice has been issued by the
respondent corporation.
In the interest of justice, matter is adjourned for
arguments on 26.09.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 455/13 to 458/13 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. R.K. Pathak, proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta / Sh. Umesh Gupta,
counsel for MCD.
Sh. Sujoy Gaur, proxy counsel for Sh. Navin
Mata, counsel for Monitoring Committee.
This case is fixed for final arguments, however, proxy
counsel for appellant submits that main counsel has got late
due to which he could not reach Delhi and seeks
adjournment.
In the interest of justice, matter is adjourned for
arguments on 03.10.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 554/13 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. K.N.Singh, counsel for appellant.
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Ld. counsel for appellant has filed copy of the receipt
regarding depositing the misuse charges. Ld counsel for
respondent admits that AE(B) has informed him regarding
the depositing the said amount.
Final arguments heard.
Put up for clarification, if any, / orders on 28.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 1158/15 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, proxy counsel for MCD.
Ld. proxy counsel for respondent submits that main
counsel is not available and seeks adjournment.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for arguments on 10.11.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 186/16 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Akansha Dhammi, counsel for SDMC
alongwith Sh. Sushil Kumar, AE(B).
Ld. counsel for respondent submits that sealing
record has been brought and same will be filed today itself.
She submits that the property on which tower has been
installed is a double storey flat. The ground floor is having
property no. E-39/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New
Delhi and first floor of the flat bearing no. E-40/IV, Old
Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar,New Delhi. Sealing order has
been passed from the address of E-39/IV, Old Double
Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi wrongly. She further
submits that there is a permission to install the tower at the
roof top of premises No. E-40/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat
Nagar, New Delhi but due to confusion sealing order was
passed.
She has also produced the record. AE(B) also admits
to the fact that there is a permission to install the tower on
the roof top of premises no. E-40/IV, Old Double Storey,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and the tower is installed at the
said premises and not at property no E-39/IV, Old double
Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Statement of the AE(B)
has been recorded in this regard separately.
In view of the statement of the AE(B) and considering
the facts and circumstances, I allow the appeal and order to
deseal the tower of the appellant installed at the roof top of
property no.E-40/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New
Delhi within ten days from today. Original record is returned.
Photo copy of the record be filed today itself. File be
consigned to record room.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 465/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. S.D. Dixit, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against the order dated 07.12.2013,
whereby respondent has order to demolish the unauthorized
construction which is beyond Sanctioned Building Plan in
the premises bearing no. A-1, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi.
Ld. counsel for appellant has filed some documents
including copy of impugned order. He submits that he has
obtained the documents from RTI from respondent
corporation.
An application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of
Limitation Act has also been filed alongwith the appeal.
Let notice of the appeal and application for
condonation of delay be issued to the respondent through
concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B) is directed to file entire
record of the proceedings and reply of the appeal on date
fixed.
Put up this matter on 10.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 447/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. R.P.S. Sirohi, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against the order passed U/s 343 of
DMC Act for demolition of tower installed at premises no. G-
70/3, Kiran Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Arguments heard.
Admittedly appellant is not the owner of the tower
about which demolition order has been passed and he just
the owner of the land on which the said tower is installed,
therefore, in my view the owner of tower is a necessary
party
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that he will file the
application to implead the owner of the tower.
Put up this matter for further proceedings on
24.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 468/17 04.07.2017
Present : Ms. Vimlesh Gupta, proxy counsel for
appellant.
This is an appeal against the demolition order.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)
is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply
of the appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 14.07.2017. Notice be issued
dasti.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 466/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. V.K. Upadhayay, counsel for appellants
alongwith appellants.
This is an appeal against the demolition order dated
10.03.2017 passed U/s 343 of DMC Act, whereby
respondent has order to demolish the unauthorized
construction in the shape of entire stilt to third floor.
Alongwith appeal an application of condonation of delay has
also been filed.
Let notice of the appeal and application for
condonation of delay be issued to the respondent through
concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B) is directed to file entire
record of the proceedings and reply of the appeal on date
fixed.
Put up this matter on 11.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 968/16 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Adesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for
appellant.
File taken up on an application for withdrawal of the
appeal.
Issue notice of the application to the respondent for
the date already fixed i.e. 30.08.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 586/16 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. R.C. Gupta, counsel for appellant.
File taken up on an application for grant of stay.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that respondent
has issued the vacation notice U/s 349 of DMC Act,
whereby directed the appellant to vacate the premises. He
submits that since appeal against demolition is pending,
therefore, operation of vacation notice be stayed till the
pendency of the appeal.
In my view the application has no permits as the
appellant has not got any stay in the main appeal from
carrying out demolition action. Hence, the application is
dismissed.
Put up this matter on the date already fixed i.e.
26.09.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 481/15 04.07.2017
Present : None.
File taken up today on the affidavit filed by the
appellant in compliance of the order dated 02.06.2017.
As per the report of Ahlmad dimension of the
construction has not been mentioned in the affidavit as
directed by this Tribunal.
None has appeared on behalf of appellant.
Put up this matter on the date already fixed i.e.
05.09.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 1012/16 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Kartik Kumar, proxy counsel for appellant.
File taken up on an application for early hearing.
This court diary does not permit any short date,
hence the application is dismissed.
Put up this matter on the date already fixed i.e.
27.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 633/16 & 942/16 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Deepak Vohra, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Raj Bhushan, JLO from EDMC.
Ld. counsel for appellant seeks some time to argue
the matter.
In the interest of justice, case is adjourned for
arguments on 19.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 481/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. G.r. Verma counsel for appellant.
Present appeal has been filed against demolition
order.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)
is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply
of the appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 17.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 480/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Ayush Gupta counsel for appellant.
Present appeal has been filed against demolition
order dated 26.05.2016.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)
is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply
of the appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 12.07.2017. Notice be given
dasti as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 479/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Ayush Gupta counsel for appellant.
Present appeal has been filed against demolition
order dated 26.05.2016.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)
is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply
of the appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 12.07.2017. Notice be given
dasti as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 478/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Ayush Gupta counsel for appellant.
Present appeal has been filed against demolition
order dated 13.12.2016.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)
is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply
of the appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 12.07.2017. Notice be given
dasti as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 462/17 to 464/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Firozuddin, proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal / Ms. Manjusha Jha / Sh.
Jatinder Pal Singh, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. S.K. Katara, AE(B).
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that record is
lying with appeal no. 241/15 titled as ‘Mohd. Irfan Vs. EDMC
which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.07.2016.
Ahlmad is directed to tag the said file.
Put up this matter at 02.00 PM.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017 03.00 PM
Present : Sh. Firozuddin, proxy counsel for appellant.
Ms. Kriti Aggarwal / Ms. Manjusha Jha / Sh.
Jatinder Pal Singh, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. S.K. Katara, AE(B).
Ahlmad has tagged the file. Ld. proxy counsel for
appellant submits that main counsel is not available and
seeks adjournment which is strongly opposed by the Ld.
counsel for respondent.
Ld. counsel for respondent submits that appellant
has obtained the stay by concealing the facts of filing of
previous appeal. Hence, stay be vacated.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
put up this matter on 05.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 476/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. M.S. Khan, counsel for appellant.
Present appeal has been filed against demolition
order dated 11.06.2017 passed by the AE(B) u/s 343 of the
DMC Act to the owner of property bearing no. 2450, ground
floor, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, GTB Nagar, Delhi.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that though the
order has been passed for demolition of the unauthorized
construction from ground floor to third floor but appellant is
the owner of ground floor whereas rest of the property has
been purchased by different owners. He further submits
that the property in question was constructed as per
Sanctioned Building Plan dated 11.01.1994, and the
respondent has mentioned the area of 80.11 sq. mtr. was
sanctioned for ground floor.
He submits that existing area of ground floor is
130.99 sq. mtr. at ground floor and same was constructed
way back and is under protection as same is prior to
07.02.2007. He further submits that the area shown in
property tax return for the year 2006-07 is 111.89 sq. mtr.
for ground floor but respondent has only calculated the area
as 130 sq. mtr. including the area of open space and stair
case which do not come in covered area. He further
submits that the respondent has passed the said order to
give the benefit to the owner of second floor because
second floor owner was raising the construction on third
floor which was objected by the owner of ground floor and
first floor and when the complaint was made before the
MCD thereafter, writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble
High Court.
I have considered the arguments and gone through
the record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
in my view, it is a fit case for grant of ex-parte interim
injunction.
A.No. 476/17
Hence, I order that respondent corporation will not carry out
any demolition action in the property of the appellant
bearing no. 2450, ground floor, Hudson Line, Kingsway
Camp, GTB Nagar, Delhi qua the impugned demolition
order till next date of hearing. However, it is clarified that
the respondent has liberty to carry out demolition on other
floors of the property in question.
Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details of
construction with measurements of the existing construction
alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property
in question within five days failing which status order
granted shall be deemed to be vacated.
Appellant is also directed not to carry out any
addition, alteration, repair or construction and shall also not
create any third party interest in the property in question.
However, this order will not come in the way of any
other order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or
Hon’ble High Court qua the property in question.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)
is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply
of the appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 28.07.2017. Copy of the order
be given dasti, as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 482/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. S.K. Sharma, counsel for appellant.
Present appeal has been filed against demolition
order dated 15.02.2017 passed u/s 343 of the DMC Act
whereby respondent has ordered to demolish unauthorized
construction at terrace of third floor (fourth floor) in the
property of the appellant bearing no. D-108, Panchsheel
Enclave, New Delhi-110017.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that the property at
fourth floor consists of one room with bathroom (servant
quarter) which was constructed way back i.e. much prior to
07.02.2007. He further submits that respondent official
have not considered the documents filed by the appellant
i.e. various complaints filed by his brother to the authorities
including MCD regarding raising of the said construction.
He further submits that the appellant could not file
the appeal as appellant has approached the respondent
official but they have not considered the documents and
they were under the impression that the respondent has
revoked the order and he came to know on 07.06.2017
when the respondent issued the order u/s 343 of the DMC
Act and then he approached to this court.
I have considered the arguments and gone through
the record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
in my view, it is a fit case for grant of ex-parte interim
injunction. Hence, I order that respondent corporation will
not carry out any demolition action in the fourth floor of the
property of the appellant bearing no. D-108, Panchsheel
Enclave, New Delhi-110017 qua the impugned demolition
order till next date of hearing.
Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details of
construction with measurements of the existing construction
alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property
in question within five days failing which status order
granted shall be deemed to be vacated.
A.No. 482/17
Appellant is also directed not to carry out any
addition, alteration, repair or construction and shall also not
create any third party interest in the property in question.
However, this order will not come in the way of any
other order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or
Hon’ble High Court qua the property in question.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)
is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply
of the appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 03.08.2017. Copy of the order
be given dasti, as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 483/17 04.07.2017
Present : Sh. Rajat Srivastav, counsel for appellant.
Present appeal has been filed against demolition
order.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)
is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply
of the appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 07.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 385/15, 428/15 & 429/15 04.07.2017
Present : None for the parties.
Vide separate common detailed order, the appeals
bearing no. 385/15 and 428/15 are dismissed and appeal
bearing no. 429/15 is allowed and remanded back to the
respondent for fresh decision.
The file of the department, if any, be returned to the
respondent alongwith copy of this order. One copy of the
order be sent to Commissioner concerned through Chief
Law Officer concerned for necessary action. One attested
copy of the order be placed in appeal bearing no. 428/15
and 429/15 and original be kept in appeal no. 385/15. Files
be consigned to record room.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 1003/16 04.07.2017
Present : None for the parties.
This case is fixed for orders, however, some
clarifications is required regarding the attorney executed by
appellant in favour of Sh. Vijay Sharma.
Put up this matter on 14.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 04.07.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 04.07.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 04.07.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 04.07.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 04.07.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 04.07.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. Statement of Sh.
ON SA
RO&AC
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. Statement of Sh.
ON SA
RO&AC
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. Statement of Sh.
ON SA
RO&AC
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. Statement of Sh.
ON SA
RO&AC
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017
A.No. 186/16 Statement of Sh. Sushil Kumar, AE(B),Central Zone.
ON SA
It is submitted that the property on which tower is installed is a
double storey flat. The ground floor is having property no. E-39/IV, Old
double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and first floor of flat No. is E-
40/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and permission has
been granted to install the tower in property no. E-40/IV, Old Double
Storey, Lajpat Nagar , New Delhi but due to confusion sealing order has
been passed for the address of E-39/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat
Nagar, New Delhi and the tower is installed at the roof top of property No.
E-40/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
RO&AC
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
04.07.2017