A.No. 797/17 26.10.2018 None has appeared on behalf of the ...

A.No. 797/17 26.10.2018

Present : None for appellant.

Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer for North DMC.

None has appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Put up this matter for arguments on 27.05.2019.

(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.

Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018

A.No. 586/18 26.10.2018

Present : Ms. Monika Singh, proxy counsel for

appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. P.K. Pandey, AE(B).

Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.

Reply to the status report of the respondent filed by

the appellant. Copy supplied.

Main counsel for appellant is not available.

Put up this matter for arguments on maintainability of

the appeal on 19.12.2018.



A.No. 842/14 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, proxy counsel for Sh.

Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Nagina Jain, proxy counsel for Sh. V.K.

Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.

Main counsels are not available.




A.No. 171/14 26.10.2018





Status report not filed by the respondent.

Concerned AE(B) is not present.

Concerned Dy. Commissioner is directed to appear

in person alongwith status report on 07.12.2018.

Copy of order be given Dasti to the respondent for

compliance.



A.No. 686/15 26.10.2018



Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for MCD

Status report regarding dismantle of tower by the

appellant not filed as the statement was made by AR of

appellant company for dismantling the tower in question

within four weeks.

Put up this matter for filing status report by both

parties / dismissal of appeal on 07.12.2018.



A.No. 1176/13 & 109/13 26.10.2018



Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer for

North DMC.

Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant is stated to be

ill and not available.

Adjournment sought on behalf of appellant.




A.No. 376/17 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, counsel for

appellant.

Sh. Surender Singh, counsel for MCD.

Copy of application alongwith G-8 receipt dated

05.02.2018 filed before the respondent by the appellant has

been placed on record. Copy of said application supplied to

counsel for respondent.

Put up this matter for filing status report by the

respondent regarding decision on the said application on

28.02.2019.



A.No. 548/14 26.10.2018



Ms. Nagina Jain, proxy counsel for Sh. H.R.

Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.

Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer for North DMC.

AR of the appellant company is not present for

making the statement regarding dismantling of tower in

question.

No application for regularization filed by the

appellant.

Respondent is at liberty to take action as per law and

file status report on 28.02.2019.

Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for

compliance.



A.No. 385/17 26.10.2018





Adjournment sought on behalf of respondent to file

the status report.

Concerned AE(B) is directed to appear in person

alongwith status report in compliance of order dated

09.08.2018.

Put up this matter for filing of status report by the

respondent and arguments on 28.02.2019.



A.No. 986/16 & 392/17 26.10.2018



Sh. Surender Singh / Ms. Nirmala Sharma,

counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Sushil Kumar,

AE(B).

Status report filed stating that the file is not traceable.

It is further submitted that the appellant is required to

move fresh application for regularization of mobile tower.

Copy of status report supplied to the appellant for

taking necessary action whatever required.

Respondent is directed to trace the file and produce

the record on 28.02.2019.



A.No. 139/12 & 555/12 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. A.K. Trivedi, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Mohit Sharma, counsel for MCD in appeal

no. 139/12.

Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD in appeal

no. 555/12.

Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for DDA in appeal

no. 139/12 alongwith Ms. Anju Sharma, JLO

from DDA, Sh. Kanwar Singh, Kanoongo from

DDA and Sh. Subhash Gupta, Naib Tehsildar,

LM North Zone, DDA.

None for SDM, Saraswati Vihar.

Written submissions filed on behalf of appellant in

appeal no. 555/12. Copy supplied.

Appeal file bearing no. 162/12 not attached with this

file despite directions. Ahlmad is warned to be careful in

future and directed to attach the file.

An affidavit of Dy. Director, Land Management of

DDA has been filed containing objections to the

demarcation report dated 25.07.2018.

Nodal Officer for MCD submitted that the copy of

demarcation report filed by the SDM, Saraswati Vihar has

not been given since no one is present on behalf of SDM.

Notice be issued to the SDM to appear in person to

supply the copy to the North DMC.

Ld. counsel for DDA submitted that the objections

has been prepared on the basis of information and expert

advice of Naib Tehsildar, Sh. Subhash Gupta, LM North

Zone of DDA and Sh. Kanwar Singh, Kanoongo.

Both of them submitted that M/s N.K. Engineers has

not consulted and asked to present at spot of the

demarcation.

A.No. 139/12 & 555/12 - 2 -

Ld. counsel for appellant submitted that let an

affidavit be taken from Kanoongo and Naib Tehsildar in

support of the objections filed today which has been

prepared on their directions and advice.

Naib Tehsildar / concerned Dy. Director, LM, DDA is

directed to file affidavit in support of the objections to the

demarcation report which was filed before this Tribunal on

25.08.2018.

SDM concerned and representatives of N.K.

Engineers are also directed to appear in person to clarify

the objections of the DDA.

Put up this matter for appearance of SDM and N.K.

Engineers / attachment of file mentioned above and

arguments on 16.11.2018.



A.No. 65/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Vishal Bhardwaj, proxy counsel for

appellant.

Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.

Sh. Pratap, proxy counsel for intervener.

Adjournment sought as main counsel for appellant is

not available due to some urgent personal difficulty.

It is made clear that further adjournment shall not be

granted and the parties are at liberty to file written

submissions.

Last and final opportunity is granted for final


Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.



A.No. 97/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, applicant in

person.

File taken up today on an application moved on

behalf of applicant Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma for directing

the respondent to file videography and photographs of the

property in question.

Let the notice of the same be issued to the

respondent for date already fixed i.e. 14.11.2018.

Notice be given Dasti.



A.No. 795/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Pradyuman Singh, counsel for appellant.

This is an appeal against the demolition order dated

10.08.2015. Application seeking condonation of delay has

been filed by the appellant.

In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is

stated that earlier the said order was challenged in appeal

no. 844/15 and the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn

on the statement of attorney of appellant on 23.05.2016.

Copy of order has been placed on record.

Ld. counsel for appellant pointed out that the order of

Hon’ble High Court dated 06.04.2018 in Writ Petition (C)

No. 7426/2015 titled as Arshad Ali Vs. MCD and states that

in view of the said order, liberty has been granted to file the

present appeal.

On perusal of the said order, nothing can be

concluded that it was brought to the knowledge of Hon’ble

High Court that the appellant has filed the appeal and has

withdrawn the same against the demolition order dated

05.08.2015. Apparently, the appeal is not maintainable.

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks adjournment to

address arguments on maintainability.

Put up this matter for consideration on 22.11.2018.



A.No. 758/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Sagar Saxena with Sh. Abhishek Singh,

counsel for appellant.

An appeal under section 254 of the New Delhi

Municipal Council Act, 1994 has been filed against the show

cause notice dated 05.10.2018 passed u/s 247 of the said

act by Sh. V.K. Nimesh, Executive Engineer (EBR) of the

NDMC for demolition of premise / shop i.e. M/s Kiosk

(Popular Drinks), HPCL, Petrol Pump, Niti Marg, New Delhi

on account of unauthorized construction.

The notification u/s 253 subsection (1)(2) of NDMC

Act 1994 in favour of the undersigned is not received from

the Ministry of Home Affairs despite the orders of Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi dated 09.04.2018 vide no.

1466/DSC/Gazzette/GAZ-II/MCDAT/2018 and as such the

appeal cannot be entertained by this Tribunal.

Put up this matter for awaiting notification from the

Ministry Of Home Affairs and further proceedings on

10.12.2018.

Copy of the order be given Dasti to counsel for

appellant, as prayed.



A.No. 626/16 & 627/16 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Dinker Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Sudesh Sharma, counsel for MCD.

It is submitted that the order dated 13.07.2018

regarding supply of necessary documents to the respondent

within two weeks was complied.

Respondent has not filed any status report in that

regard after deciding the matter.

Let the status report regarding decision of

regularization be filed on 07.02.2019.



A.No. 159/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Anil Gera, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.

Fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.

Reply to the application u/s 340 of Cr.PC filed. Status

report also filed.

Costs of Rs. 10,000/- will be deposited within a week.

As per the status report action was taken against the

unauthorized construction in the shape of deviations / excess

coverage against Sanctioned Building Plan dated 17.03.2009 at

ground floor of property no. 10/16, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.

Vide proceedings dated 30.01.2017, show cause notice

was served upon the appellant who appeared before the AE(B)

and sought adjournment for various dates for getting the property

regularized.

Opportunities were given for that purpose but he failed to

do so. Thereafter, respondent has passed the demolition order

against the unauthorized construction on 21.08.2017. Demolition

order which was served upon the appellant was never

challenged.

Sealing show cause notice u/s 345-A of DMC Act dated

29.08.2017 was issued to the appellant. Reply was submitted by

the appellant giving details of disputes between Sh. Prakash

Gupta and Mrs. Lalita Gupta who are stated to be co-owners and

they are residing at second floor.

First floor is stated to be sealed. Appellant was given

opportunity to submit an affidavit with regard to the construction

on the ground floor is as per the Sanctioned Building Plan and

there are no deviations / excess coverage at ground floor but he

failed to do so.

AE(B), KBZ prepared a plan in which the existing

construction was super imposed on the sanction building plan

dated 17.03.2009. The said plan corroborates the contentions of

show cause notice dated 29.08.2017 and nullified the contention

of Sh. Arora (appellant) regarding his claim that there is no

deviations / excess coverage at ground floor.

A.No. 159/18 - 2 -

Appellant has submitted an explanation that on the plan

prepared by the building department in which the existing

construction was super imposed on the sanction building plan

and tried to justify his case in the light of order dated 14.10.1987

passed by LG of Delhi in the matter of MCD Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim &

Ors. but the deviations and excess coverage, in respect of which

the notice has been issued and also demolition order passed, are

not covered by the said order. Accordingly, sealing order was

passed on 01.12.2018.

Ld. counsel for appellant, at the very outset, submitted

that appellant has not challenged the demolition order as the

same was never supplied and the same was also not supplied in

the RTI enquiry.

Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that even if the

contention that the demolition order was not supplied is to be

accepted, the appellant is aware about the demolition order since

the filing of appeal since February 2018 and no steps has been

taken in that regard.

It is apparent and clear that appellant has no intention to

challenge the demolition order passed in this case.

Respondent is directed to clarify after inspection of the

property about the deviations and excess coverage.

Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that the said

exercise has already been done as is evident from the sealing

order produced / filed, yellow portion shown in the plan placed at

page no. 12/C.

In view of these facts, respondent may take action as per

law to bring the existing property within the parameters of

Sanctioned Building Plan dated 17.03.2009 and file action taken

report by next date of hearing.

Put up this matter for filing action taken report and


Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for

compliance.

Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.



A.No. 258/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Amit Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Mikhil Sharda, counsel for MCD alongwith

Sh. Ravi Kumar, AE(B).

Record not produced. Status report not filed on the

ground that in the appeal the property mentioned is of

village Munirka whereas notice has been issued for the

property of Malviya Nagar.

Ld. counsel for appellant pointed out that

inadvertently in the index, property has been shown as

Malviya Nagar whereas appeal has been prepared for the

property bearing no. 3/31-32, Shivalik Road, Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi.

Respondent is directed to produce the record of

Malviya Nagar property alongwith status report on

04.12.2018.



A.No. 791/18

26.10.2018 Present : Counsel for the appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for EDMC.

Counsel for respondent seeks adjournment

to file status report . However, copy of written statement

in civil suit no. 723/18 regarding the same property has

been filed.

At the very outset counsel for the appellant

submits that property has been booked as per show

cause notice at ground floor whereas tin shed exists on

the first floor where no fresh construction was raised and

was erected. It is further submitted that without inspecting

the site, the impugned order has been passed and

demolition action has been taken on the ground floor and

there is no tin-shed at the roof of the ground floor as there

is Kadi-pathar.

In view of these facts and circumstances,

respondent is directed to carry out inspection of the

property booked by them in the presence of appellant on

27.11.2018 at 11.00 AM and file the status report by next

date of hearing.

Considering the submissions made at Bar

and in view of the documents placed at page no. 75 on

record which is MCD inspection report, tin-shed is

mentioned in the end of the report, respondent is

restrained from taking any coercive action in respect of

property bearing no. II/476 (old number 475) Teliwada,

Shahdara, Delhi-32, in pursuance of demolition order

dated 20.08.2018 till next date of hearing.

However, this order is subject to any other

order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court/Hon’ble High

Court in respect of the property in question.

A.No. 791/18 -2-

Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details

of construction with measurement of the existing

construction alongwith existing site plan and photographs of

the property in question within five working days, failing

which stay order granted shall deemed to be vacated.

Copy of the affidavit will be provided to

concerned AE(B) by the appellant, who shall verify whether

details of construction mentioned in the affidavit is correct or

not.

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.

Put up this matter for filing of status report, record

by the respondent on 04.03.2019.

Copy of this order be given dasti.

(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD

26.10.2018

A.No. 437/18

26.10.2018 Present : Sh. Sachin Gautam, counsel for the appellants

alongwith appellant no.1.

Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for the respondent.


Matter is listed for consideration of the

application for early hearing. Notice was issued and

served upon the respondent on 16.10.2018

Counsel for the respondent states that he

has no objection for early hearing.

Heard. Since the matter is already listed for

13.11.2018, there is no necessity of early hearing,

respondent is directed to file status report alongwith

entire record of the proceedings and reply of the appeal

as well as application for condonation of delay on date

fixed. Record be deposited in the Tribunal. Put up this

matter on the date already fixed i.e 13.11.2018.

In the meantime parties are directed to

maintain status-quo in respect of property bearing

no.7989-90m Kharia Mohalla, Roshnara Road, Delhi-06

in pursuance of demolition order dated 01.06.2018 till

next date of hearing.

However, this order is subject to any other

order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court/Hon’ble High

Court in respect of the property in question.

Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving

details of construction with measurement of the existing

construction alongwith existing site plan and photographs

of the property in question within five working days, failing

which stay order granted shall deemed to be vacated.

Copy of the affidavit will be provided to

concerned AE(B) by the appellant, who shall verify

whether details of construction mentioned in the affidavit

is correct or not.

A.No. 437/18 -2-

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.

Copy of this order be given dasti.


26.10.2018

A.No. 616/18

26.10.2018 Present : Sh. Shantanu Bhardwaj, counsel for the

appellant.

Sh. Vijay Tyagi, counsel for the respondent

alongwith Sh. Rakesh Rawat, Supdt, General

Branch.

Status report filed stating that Sh. Rakesh

Kumar Verma vide application dated 24.11.2017 applied

for temporary desealing of the premises which was not

considered and same was communicated to the appellant

vide letter dated 14.03.2018. Further, it is stated that no

application is pending consideration for desealing of the

property and levy of misuse charges is as per circular

dated 09.10.2018. It is further stated that as and when

appellant applied for desealing of the property same will

be considered as per circular dated 09.10.2018 as

annexure-R1 (colly).

Record produced. Same be returned for

preparing status report and will be filed on the next date

of hearing.

Ld Counsel for the appellant at the very

outset submitted that application for desealing was

moved on 22.12.2017 after obtaining necessary licence

for running activity in the property. The said application

alongwith receiving is stated to be placed at page no.28

of the paper book.

Respondent is directed to decide the said

application within two weeks. Appellant is directed to

approach the respondent to clarify for determining the

misuse charges in view of the circular annexed with the

status report. Respondent is thereafter directed to

determine the misuse charge if any and give information

to the appellant. Appellant may deposit the misuse

charges immediately.

A.No. 616/18 -2-

Put up for filing status report regarding

decision on the application/ payment of misuse charges if

any/ clarification as to whether appellant is entitled to use

the premises in view of the licence granted by the

respondent.

In case status report not filed. Dy.

Commissioner will appear in person on 14.11.2018.


26.10.2018

A.No. 1088/15,1087/15

26.10.2018 Present : None for the appellant.

Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal officer for North DMC.

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma Senior Law officer, Ms. Anju

Sharma JLO, Ms. Bindu Gehlot DD/NZ, Ms.

Kalpanan Khokhar AD/NZ for DDA.

Notice was issued to the DDA in appeal no.

1088/15 to file standard building plan which was received

in the office of DDA on 20.03.2018.

Copy of standard building plan and layout

plan of Gulabi Bagh supplied to the North DMC.

Put up this matter for filing of status report

by the North DMC/arguments on 18.04.2019.


26.10.2018

A.No. 276/17

26.10.2018 Present : Sh.Rudresh proxy counsel for Ms. Monica,

counsel for the appellant.

None for the SDMC.

Mohd Naushad proxy counsel for Sh. M.N.

Siddiqui for R2.

Adjournment sought as counsel for the

appellant is not available.

Put up for arguments on 19.04.2019, last

opportunity.


26.10.2018

A.No. 867/16, 466/17

26.10.2018 Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Nagina Jain/ Ms. Sudesh Sharma, counsel

for the respondent.

Status report in compliance of order dated

22.02.2018 not filed.

Counsel for the appellant submits that

appellant is not in possession of site plan.

Adjournment sought on the ground that

information has been sought from Building (HQ).

Put up for filing status report in compliance

of previous order on 20.02.2019.

Interim orders, if any, to continue till next

date of hearing.


26.10.2018

A.No. 298/15, 299/15

26.10.2018 Present : Sh.Rajeshwar Singh , counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Sudesh Sharma, counsel for the respondent.

Adjournment sought for arguments.

Put up for final arguments on 07.02.2019,

last opportunity.


26.10.2018

A.No. 291/15

26.10.2018 Present : Ms. Pooja Yadav, proxy counsel for Sh. Anuj

Garg, counsel for the appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for EDMC.

Adjournment sought as counsel for the

appellant is not available.

Put up for arguments on 11.01.2019.

Both the parties are directed to file written

brief submissions not exceeding to 5 pages.


26.10.2018

A.No. 684/17, 240/17

26.10.2018 Present : Sh.Sriniwas , counsel for the appellant.

Sh.Dharamvir Gupta counsel for the respondent.

Part arguments heard.

Both the parties are directed to file written

brief submissions not exceeding to 5 pages for perusal.

Put up for filing chain of original documents/

written submissions/remaining arguments on 30.11.2018.


26.10.2018

A.No. 383/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Feroj Iqbal, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Sanjay Sethi, counsel for respondent

alongwith Sh. Abdul Haq, JLO and Sh. R.K.

Verma, AE(B).]


It is submitted by the respondent at the very out set,

that demolition order dated 12.01.2016 which was

challenged in appeal No.169/18 and 170/18 has been set

aside vide order dated 09.08.2018 and the matter was

remanded back.

As per status report, it is stated that remand back

proceedings are under process in pursuance of the common

order dated 09.08.2018. Counsel for respondent submitted

that appellant be directed to join those proceedings.

In view of the said order, ld. counsel for appellant

states that the appeal may be disposed off with the direction

to the respondent to provide the opportunity to the appellant

in the remand back proceedings going on.

On perusal of the copy of the order dated 09.08.2018

in appeal No.169/18 & 170/18, it is found that the demolition

order dated 12.01.2016 which has been challenged in this

appeal has already been set aside, therefore, this appeal be

also remanded back with the same terms and conditions

with the directions to the respondent to provide opportunity

to this appellant also to file reply as well as personal

hearing.

Appellant is directed to appear before the AE(B)

concerned on 12.11.2018 at 3.00 p.m. The AE(B) shall

provide the opportunity of submitting reply of the show

cause notice as well as personal hearing to the appellant on

which date the appellant is permitted to file reply, document

and written submissions, if any. Appellant, however shall

not seek any adjournment on any ground for personal

hearing or for filing any document or written submission or

for submitting reply of the show cause notice.

A.No. 383/18

The AE(B), concerned thereafter shall pass the

speaking order and deal with all the submissions, pleas and

the defences raised by the appellant and shall complete the

proceedings maximum preferably within two months

thereafter.

With these observations appeal is remanded back.

The appellant shall not raise any further construction in the

said property nor shall sell it or create any third party

interest in the same till the matter is decided afresh by the

AE(B) or till the period of four weeks whichever is later.

Appellant shall also not carry out any repair (except

whitewash) in this property without written permission of

AE(B) concerned.

The appeal is, thus, disposed off. The file of the

department be returned to the respondent alongwith copy of

this order. Appeal file be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be given Dasti to both the parties,

as prayed.



A.No. 689/18 26.10.2018

Present : None for the appellant.

Sh. Naresh Sharma, counsel for respondent

alongwith Sh. S.P. Garg, AE(B).

Sh. Ravinder Kumar,, Zonal Revenue Officer,

from Delhi Jal Board.

Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent filed

Status report filed stating that the property could not

be inspected to verify status vis-a-viz affidavit of the

appellant 25.10.2018 because owner/occupier did not open

the door. The measurement could not be verified.

Nothing has been mentioned in the status report

regarding the contents of the appeal.

Record regarding sealing action has been produced.

Sealing show cause notice was issued on 22.06.2018. The

sealing order was passed on 03.08.2018. Sealing action

has been taken because of the unauthorized construction of

the entire third floor.

On 03.08.2018 part sealing action took place

wherein one toilet (LHS) was sealed at one point, one outer

room at one point and entire third floor terrace by affixing

one point.

Put up again during the course of the day for

clarification regarding pendency of the other appeal against

the demolition order.



A.No.689/18 1.25 p.m.

Present: Appellant in person.

Sh. Naresh Sharma, counsel for respondent

alongwith Sh. S.P. Garg, AE(B).

Sh. Ravinder Kumar,, Zonal Revenue Officer, from

Delhi Jal Board.

Appellant is unable to clarify regarding

pendency of the appeal against the demolition order and

submits that his counsel is not available.

Put up on 02.01.2019 for arguments. Interim

stay, if any, is extended till next date.



A.No. 982/13, 984/13 & 985/13 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Orangjeb Ali, Khan, counsel for appellant.

Notice was not taken dasti.

Copy supplied to the counsel for respondent who is

present in the court.

Respondent is directed to verify whether any

demolition action has to take place in the property or for

what purpose the property can be used or whether the

penalty / conversion charges, if any has been determined /

paid by the appellant.

In view of the heavy pendency of the matters, no

ground is made out for early hearing. Application is

accordingly dismissed.

Put up on date already fixed i.e. 05.12.2018.


as prayed.



A.No. 738/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Avishek Kumar, counsel for appellant.




Status report filed stating that the present property

No.D-331, D-Block. Gali No.12, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi consists

of two part, first part consists of ground floor, first floor,

second floor and third floor while the second part consists

of ground floor, first floor and second floor.

The first part was inspected on 13.12.2016 and

unauthorized construction in the shape of ground floor, first

floor and second floor was booked. Show cause notice was

issued and served by speed post and after due process of

law demolition order was passed on 10.01.2017.

The sealing action was also initiated and order for

sealing was passed on 06.03.2017.

The demolition/sealing action program was taken on

06.04.2017 wherein one point was sealed at ground floor

and vacation notice was pasted. Further action was taken

on the property on 18.09.2017 and second floor RCC slab

was cut.

The owner applied for sanction of building plan which

was sanctioned on 21.02.2018.

The property was again inspected on 07.09.2018 and

unauthorized construction in part property has been found

to be carried out deviation against Sanctioned Building Plan

dated 21.02.2018 and show cause notice was issued and

served to the owner/builder by speed post and after due

process of law demolition order was passed on 16.10.2018.

A sealing notice was also issued on 26.09.2018.

Demolition action has been taken on first part on

13.09.2018 at third floor wherein one RCC panel / slab was

demolished at third floor and reinforcement cut with the help

of gas cutter.

A.No. 738/18 -2-

Sealing action was taken on the first part of the

property on 04.10.2018 wherein one room at first floor, one

room at second floor and one room at third floor were

sealed.

Put up again.



A.No. 738/18 1.15 p.m. 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Avishek Kumar, counsel for appellant.



Ld. counsel for appellant seeks adjournment to file

further documents including affidavit filed by the respondent

in the P.G. Cell.

Ld. counsel for respondent pointed out that the

property was initially booked when construction was raised

on 100 sq.yds. out of 200 sq.yds. plot which was booked

and the appeal was filed and the same was withdrawn by

the appellant and the earlier order attains finality.

The appellant applied under ‘Saral’ scheme and

obtained Sanctioned Building Plan and without demolishing

the earlier construction, subject matter of the earlier appeal,

further construction has been raised upon the remaining

100 sq.yds. which has been passed on 16.10.2018. It is

submitted that the said demolition order has not been

challenged in the present appeal and the appeal is against

the earlier order against which earlier appeal was filed and

as such is not maintainable.

A.No. 738/18 -3-

Counsel for appellant seeks adjournment to inspect

the record and take necessary steps against the demolition

order dated 16.10.2018 and file further documents.

Put up for arguments on maintainability of the

present appeal and further proceedings on 07.12.2018.


as prayed.



A.No. 744/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Zafar Abbas, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Kanta Chaudhary, counsel for respondent.


Status report filed.

As per FIR dated 22.08.2013 the property was

booked for unauthorized construction in the shape of extra

coverage / deviation in the shape of infringement of set back

shaft area and projection on municipal lane against

Sanctioned Building Plan dated 23.04.2013.

Show cause notice dated 22.08.2013 sent by speed

post. Receipt has been placed on record.

Demolition order was passed on 09.09.2013.

Sealing show cause notice dated 15.03.2017 was

issued and served by speed post. Detailed sealing order

was passed on 11.04.2017.

On 18.08.2018 two shops at ground floor were

sealed.

On 11.09.2018 demolition action took placed on the

property when steel grills alongwith stairs were demolished

and cut with the help of gas cutter from ground floor to third

floor.

Put up again.



A.No. 744/18 1.15 p.m. 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Zafar Abbas alongwith Sh. Jaiveer

Chauhan, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Kanta Chaudhary, counsel for respondent.

I have heard arguments on the application moved by

the appellant seeking condonation of delay because order

dated 09.09.2013 has been challenged and the appeal has

been filed on 05.10.2018, beyond the period of limitation.

It is stated in the application that appellant came to

know about the demolition order dated 09.09.2013 when

respondent officials came at the suit property to execute the

demolition order.

It is further stated that the property was partly

demolished on 11.09.2018 without any prior intimation or

notice in that regard.

It is further submitted that on 10.09.2018 an

application was moved by the appellant for supply of the

demolition order and the copy of the order was provided on

14.09.2018.

Ld. counsel for respondent at the very out set

submitted that even if from the admission of the appellant

the copy of the order has been received on 14.09.2018, the

appeal has been filed on 05.10.2018, again beyond the

period of limitation, which was required to be filed within six

days of the demolition order.

Regarding service of the show cause notice it is

submitted that the said show cause notice dated 22.08.2013

was sent by speed post. Original receipt of the speed post

is already placed on record.

It is, therefore, submitted that show cause notice is

deemed to have been served which was never received.

It is, therefore, argued that on all the account the

appeal is barred by limitation.

Adjournment sought to amend the application for

condonation of delay.

A.No. 744/18 1.15 p.m.

Ld. counsel for respondent pointed out that appellant

has purchased the property vide sale deed dated

12.09.2013.

Ld. counsel for appellant has pointed out various

documents qua the property in question, however, ld.

counsel for respondent submitted that in the sale deed, on

the basis of which appellant is claiming ownership, the

structure upon the land purchased has not been described

in the documents and it seems to be the case of

reconstruction of the property.

At request, put up for remaining arguments and

amendment in the application for condonation of delay on

03.12.2018.



A.No. 745/18 26.10.2018


Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, proxy counsel for Ms. Kriti



Status report filed.


booked for unauthorized construction at ground floor, first

floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor. Show cause

notice was issued on 22.01.2016 and sent by speed post.

Demolition order was passed on 17.02.2016 served by

speed post.

Demolition action took placed on 11.10.2018 one

shop at stilt sealed and one room at second floor was

sealed.

On 29.01.2018 part demolition action took place

wherein ground floor projection brick wall were demolished

and further demolition action on 30.01.2018 ground floor

RCC slab cut with gas cutter and one point sealed and top

floor and one panel cut with gas cutter and one point

sealed.

Put up again.



A.No. 745/18 1.15 p.m.

Present: Sh. Zafar Abbas alongwith Sh. Jaiveer


Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, proxy counsel for Ms. Kriti

Aggarwal, counsel for MCD

I have heard the arguments on application moved by

the appellant seeking condonation of delay because order

dated 17.02.2016 has been challenged and the appeal has

been filed on 05.10.2018, beyond the period of limitation.

A.No. 745/18 1.15 p.m. -2-

It is stated in the application that appellant came to

know about the demolition order dated 17.02.2016 when

respondent officials came at the suit property to execute the

demolition order.

It is further stated that the property was partly

demolished on 30.01.2018 without any prior intimation or

notice in that regard.

It is further submitted that on 10.09.2018 an

application was moved by the appellant for supply of the

demolition order and the copy of the order was provided on

14.09.2018.












deemed to have been served which was never received

back.







12.09.2013.

A.No. 745/18 1.15 p.m. -3-

Ld. counsel for appellant has pointed out various

documents qua the property in question, however, ld.

counsel for respondent submitted that in the sale deed, on

the basis of which appellant is claiming ownership, the

structure upon the land purchased has not been described

in the documents and it seems to be the case of

reconstruction of the property.

At request, put up for remaining arguments and

amendment in the application for condonation of delay on

03.12.2018.



A.No. 746/18 26.10.2018


Sh. Anil Mishra, counsel for respondent

alongwith Sh. P.K. Pfandey, AE(B).



booked for unauthorized construction at ground floor, first

floor and second floor. Show cause notice was issued on

06.04.2016 sent by speed post.

Demolition order was passed on 18.04.2016 and sent

by speed post.

Show cause notice u/s 345A of the dm Act was

issued on 15.03.2017. Detailed speaking order u/s 345A

was passed on 13.04.2017. The property has been sealed

at second floor at one point.

Status report also filed stating that demolition action

could not be took place on 26.05.2018 due to non

availability of police force. However, further sealing action

took place on 18.08.2018 and one room was sealed at stilt.

Demolition action took place on 08.10.2018 wherein

staircase grill were cut with the help of gas cutter and one

room sealed in stilt.

Put up again.



A.No.746/18 26.10.2018 1.00 p.m.

Present : Sh. Zafar Abbas alongwith Sh. Jaiveer


Sh. Anil Mishra, counsel for respondent


I have heard the application moved by the appellant

seeking condonation of delay because order dated

18.04.2016 has been challenged and the appeal has been

filed on 05.10.2018, beyond the period of limitation.

It is stated in the application that show cause notice

was never given before passing the demolition order. It is

further submitted that on 10.09.2018 an application was

moved by the appellant for supply of the demolition order

and the copy of the order was provided on 14.09.2018.












being to have been served which was never received.





Ld. counsel for appellant further submitted that

property is old and is having protection under Delhi Laws

(Special Provisions) Act, 2011 as the same has been

constructed before 08.02.2007 and there are various

document to show and also the status report dated

05.05.2016 filed by the MCD before P.G. Cell where it is

stated that property is old having been constructed about

12-15 years ago.



17.07.2012, copy placed at page No.29 to 34 where at page

No.31 the property sold has been described as vacant plot.

Respondent is also directed to clarify regarding

status report filed before the P.G. Cell.

Put up for remaining arguments and filing status

report by the respondent on 03.12.2018.



A.No. 791/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Ajay Singh proxy counsel for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.


Record produced. status report not filed.

Counsel for respondent is not available.

Put up again.



A.No. 742/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Vikalp, proxy counsel for appellant.

An application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation

of delay has been filed.

Dasti process not served. Adjournment sought to

serve the respondent.

Put up for service upon the respondent as per last

order for 15.11.2018.



A.No. 10/14 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.

Status report filed by the respondent in respect of

property No.H-52, NDSE-I, New Delhi stating that alleged

violations have become permissible under Unified Building

Bye Laws-2016 without counting the same towards

permissible FAR and as such the same are not required to

be compounded.

In view of the status report and statement of the

appellants, the present appeal is disposed off dismissed as

withdrawn.

The file of the department, if any, be returned to the

respondent alongwith copy of this order. File be consigned

to record room.



A.No. 628/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Manu Sisodia, counsel for appellant.

Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith

Sh. Jitender Kumar, AE(B).


Adjournment sought to file status report regarding the

demolition as well as sealing proceedings. Property is lying

sealed.

Put up for filing status report and record by the

respondent on 10.12.2018.

Copy of the demolition order and sealing order be

supplied to the appellant.



A.No. 951/17 26.10.2018

Present : None for the applicant.

Sh. Ranjeet Pandey, counsel for respondent.

The matter was listed for today as an application for

early hearing was moved, therefore, application for early

hearing is dismissed in default.

Put up on date already fixed i.e. 20.03.2019.



A.No. 703/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Milan Tyagi, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Renu Soni, Nodal Officer for SDMC.

Nodal Officer submits that the service has been

affected at second floor whereas the service e was to be

affected on 17th floor of the Chief Law Officer Office. The

counsel has placed on record proof of the service wherein

notice has been received on 08.10.2018.

Since the service has already been affected, the

status report should have been filed and record should have

been produced.

There is an application for condonation of delay.

The respondent is directed to file reply of the said

application.

Since the appeal is barred by limitation and limitation

has to be considered, no interim relief can be granted.

Put up this matter for filing of status report. Reply of

the condonation application and record by the respondent

and arguments on 29.11.2018.


as prayed.



A.No. 743/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. K.K. Gupta, AE(B).


It is stated by the ld. counsel for respondent

alongwith copy of the petition including application for

condonation of delay has not been supplied.

Status report not filed.

Original record is stated to be attached with another

appeal as find mentioned in the order dated 10.10.2018 and

listed on 06.12.2018.

Counsel for appellant submitted that sp is seeking

condonation of delay of 347 days in the application.

Let the status report be filed and reply be also filed to

the application for condonation of delay. Original record be

attached with this case.

Put up for filing status report and reply to the

application for condonation of delay by the respondent on

06.12.2018.



A.No. 75/18, 87/18, 88/18, 89/18, 71/18, 72/18, 73/18, 74/18, 90/18, 91/18, 92/18, 93/18 26.10.2018

Present : Sh. B.S. Mathur, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Vijay Tyagi, counsel for respondent

alongwith Sh. S.K. Katara, AE(B).

Part arguments heard.

Put up for remaining arguments on 09.01.2019.



A.No. 797/17 26.10.2018 None has appeared on behalf of the ...

Documents

Transcript of A.No. 797/17 26.10.2018 None has appeared on behalf of the ...