Amcdonline.gov.in/at/dailyordersnew/373_31.07.2018.pdf · 2018-08-08 · A.No. 388/16 31.07.2018 Present : Sh. Dhruv Rajput, counsel for appellant. Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel

A.No. 442/16 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Manish Sharma counsel for appellant.

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

Saini, counsel for the MCD.

Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer for North DMC.

Record of temporary desealing has been filed by

the respondent.

Appellant has placed on record affidavit in

compliance of order dated 05.06.2018 to explain relation

with M/s Manti Enterprises against whom sealing order

has been passed.

Copy of the affidavit has been supplied to the

counsel for the respondent.

Appellant in the affidavit claiming that M/s Manti

Enterprises nothing to do with the property in question at

the time of sealing of the property because property was

purchased in the year 2008 from Sh. Naresh Kumar

Gupta and sealing has been done in the year 2015.

Appellant is directed to file chain of original

documents of ownership and claiming of title and locus

standi to the file the present appeal.

It is submitted by the appellant that penalty of

misuse charges has been deposited by the appellant and

appellant is ready to give an undertaking for using the

premises for residential purposes.

Respondent is directed to file clear-cut report as to

what purpose property can be used or if any objection to

the permanent desealing for the residential purposes by

the appellant.

Put up for filing of chain of original documents of

ownership qua the property in question/final arguments on

10.10.2018.

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

Appellate Tribunal:MCD 31.07.2018

A.No. 183/17 31.07.2018

Present : Counsel for appellant.

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

Ms. Niharika, counsel for R-2.

Final arguments heard by Ld. Predecessor.

Fresh arguments need to be heard.

Put up this matter for fresh arguments on

09.01.2019.



A.No. 388/16 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Dhruv Rajput, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Sanjeev Bhatnagar, AE(B).

Status report filed stating that many times demolition

program was fixed by the respondent EDMC but complete

action against the unauthorized construction over the

property could not be taken.

Further demolition program was fixed on 30.07.2018

and demolition action has been carried out in the presence

of police force and removed the G.I. sheets and wooden

ply/board which were covering the open space at ground

floor.

Concerned AE(B) is present and states that the

remaining demolition action was not taken due to shortage

of time.

The appellant himself stated that remaining

unauthorized construction in the form of panel in back side

and G.I. sheets will be demolished by themselves.

Put up this matter for filing the status report after

taking complete demolition action in pursuance of impugned

order and arguments on 03.10.2018.



A.No. 117/15 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. G.R. Verma, counsel for appellant.

Sh. K.K. Arora, counsel for MCD.

Status report in pursuance of the order dated

04.01.2018 stating that site has been inspected alongwith

field staff of maintenance department which undertakes

development work in unauthorized regularized colony.

Inspection revealed that property does not form part

of regularized part of Zakir Nagar as such property falls in

unauthorized colony.

Concerned officer is directed to place on record

necessary documents of the decision regarding property in

question is not forming the part of Zakir Nagar which is an

unauthorized regularized colony.

Put up this matter for arguments on 29.10.2018.



A.No. 495/17 31.07.2018

Present : Appellant in person.

Ms. Praveen Sharma, counsel for EDMC

alongwith AE(B) Sh. P.K. Tiwari.

Status report filed stating that dimensions of

the suit property tally with the dimensions as mentioned in

the affidavit filed by the appellant and property consist of

ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth

floor. No demolition/sealing action has been taken against

the booking dated 18.05.2017. Nothing is mentioned in the

status report as to why no demolition action has been taken

with respect to the property as shown in red colour in the

site plan filed alongwith affidavit of the appellant.

As per original record property was booked on

18.05.2017 with respect to the unauthorized construction in

the shape of ground floor, first floor, third floor and fourth

floor with projection on municipal land. Show cause notice

dated 18.05.2017 was issued thereafter demolition order

dated 02.06.2017 was passed and vacation notice dated

06.07.2017 is placed on record at page no. C-6. Same is

stated to have been sent by speed post. No action has been

taken by the concerned AE(B) /JE(B) and no directions has

been issued by the Dy. Commissioner with regard to

demolition/sealing order in this case.

Vide order dated 14.07.2017 respondent was

restrained from taking any demolition action in the property

of appellant i.e ground floor to portion of third floor bearing

no. S-559 (Part), School Block-II, Shakarpur, Delhi.

Commissioner EDMC is directed to take necessary

administrative action against the concerned AE(B) and

other officials who are not taken any action in pursuance to

demolition/sealing action and especially with regard to the

fourth floor which is totally illegal.

-2-

It is submitted that present AE(B) has joined on

01.06.2018 and he has stated nothing in the status report as

to why he has not taken any action in pursuance to the

impugned order regarding portion as shown red in the site

plan filed by the appellant despite directions of this Tribunal

as mentioned earlier.

Put up for filing further documents by the appellant

and final arguments and action taken report alongwith

status report by the Commissioner, EDMC. Status report be

submitted under signature of Dy. Commissioner on

12.10.2018.

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

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

as prayed.



A.No. 472/18 & 473/18 31.07.2018

Present : Ms Bandana, counsel for appellant .

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.

Matter was listed for orders on interim stay

application. However, today photocopy of the Indemnity

Bond has been filed by the counsel for the appellant. Let

the copy of the same be supplied to the opposite party.

Original of the same be placed on record and fresh

arguments needs to be heard.

Put up for hearing fresh arguments on

06.08.2018.



A.No. 240/17, 684/16 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Sriniwas, counsel for the appellant.


Photocopy of chain of documents filed

whereas directions were for filing the original documents.

Adjournment sought to file the same. Let the

same be filed positively by the next date.

Respondent has filed the status report stating

that as per standard plan there shown ground floor, first

floor and barasti whereas in gross violation of the standard

plan the appellant has further constructed second floor and

third floor. The details of the permissible structure and

existing construction is given as under:-

S.no. Floor permitted as

per standard plan

Extent of

existing

construction

Remarks

1. Ground Ground Rear set back is defective

2. First First -do-

3. Barsati Second In violation of standard plan

(without legal sanctity)

4. - Third -do-

Copy of the same supplied to the counsel for the

appellant to file any reply/objections. It is further stated that

existing plan as well as standard plan submitted by the

appellant (earmarking and differentiating the area) while

filing or moving a proposal for regularization.

-2-

On 26.02.2018 respondent was directed to file the

status report about what are the deviations/ excess

coverage beyond the standard building plan and mark the

same in the existing plan or standard building plan. For that

compliance respondent has relying upon existing plan as

well as standard plan submitted by the appellant in the

regularization application which is stated to have been

dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2017. It is stated that

appellant is aged about 79 years and short date be given.

Put up for filing chain of original documents/FA on

26.10.2018.



A.No. 159/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Anil Gera, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Rishab Singhal, proxy counsel for Sh. V.K.

Gupta, assisted by Sh. Sandeep Maglik Nodal

Officer.

Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.

Status report not filed, record also not produced

and AE(B) is also not present.

An application has been filed on 06.07.2018 u/s

340 CrPC. Copy supplied.

It is submitted that main counsel for the

respondent is held up in Rohini Courts and will come at

2pm.

Today’s cause list is having 61 cases and 5-6

matters are to be listed for 2pm for current hearing, it is not

possible to adjourn the matter for second hearing after

lunch.

I have gone through the application u/s 340 CrPC

there is nothing in the said application which may prevent

the respondent from filing reply and appearance of the

AE(B) because points raised in the application can be

adjudicated at the appropriate time. In these

circumstances, subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be

imposed upon the respondent for not filing the status

report/record and absence of AE(B) concerned, one

opportunity is given to file status report/ reply/ production of

record.

Put up for filing reply to the application u/s 340

CrPC by the respondent and other purposes mentioned

above on 26.10.2018.


Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties, as

prayed.



A.No. 363/18 31.07.2018


Counsel for respondent with AE(B) Sh.

P.K.Tiwari.

Status report filed stating that as per order of the

Senior Post Master dated 27.07.2018 the track record of

speed post receipt can be down loaded from online within

two months and obtained manually in six months and the

preservation period of online and manual records has

already been elapsed. For those reasons, information could

not be provided. Practically, there is no track record

available with the respondent with record to the service of

the notice through speed post.

Fresh arguments heard. It is argued on behalf of

appellant that after the service of notice of this appeal

demolition action has taken place.

Put up for orders on 03.08.2018.



A.No. 847/14 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.

Part arguments were heard on previous date.

Adjournment sought for arguments.

At request, put up for arguments on

22.10.2018.



A.No. 995/17 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. R.R,Jha, counsel for appellant.


It is stated that property was temporarily

desealed for the purpose of removal of articles and at

present property is lying sealed. Record was produced and

has been attached.

Status report not filed. It is submitted that

further status report will be filed after calculation of the

misuse charges to be deposited alongwith penalty if any by

the appellant.

Put up for filing status report alongwith record

regarding status report as to whether the property can be

used for the commercial purpose or not after payment of

conversion charges on 28.11.2018.

For the purpose of measurement, property

may be desealed by AE(B) on any day in the presence of

appellant and should be resealed immediately.

Copy of the order be given dasti to both the

parties, as prayed.



M in A.No. 1104/16 31.07.2018

Present : None for the appellant.

Counsel for respondent.

Order dated 28.08.2017 regarding deposit of

the cost not complied.

AE(B) Rajesh Tevatia is present and seeks

adjournment to comply the order.

Put up for filing status report regarding

compliance on 26.11.2018, in case compliance report not

filed, concerned Dy. Commissioner to appear in person .

Copy of the order be given dasti to

respondent, as prayed.



A.No. 995/17 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Subhash Tagra, counsel for appellant.


Vakalatnama on behalf of appellant filed.

Status report filed stating that appellant has

already deposited the misuse charges 10 times penalty as

find mentioned in the previous order. It is further stated that

appellant was already allotted industrial plot by DSIDC and

he cannot be allowed to run any industrial activity at the site.

It is further stated that MPD-2021-2021 the property bearing

no. B-1110, Shastri Nagar Delhi falls on pedestrian street

and commercial activities are allowed on pedestrian street.

It is further submitted that appeal is not maintainable

because same has been filed by one of the attorney holder

and not by the owner.

Adjournment sought to file chain of original

documents of ownership.

Respondent is directed to file status report

regarding present use of entire property in question.

Put up on 22.10.2018.

Copy of the order be given dasti to both the

parties, as prayed.



A.No. 12/14 31.07.2018


Sh. Mohit Sharma, counsel for respondent.

Adjournment sought to take steps in

compliance of order dated 07.11.2017 for recovery of Rs.

75000/- from the appellant as per procedure prescribed in

the DMC Act Act and SDMC rules.

Put up for filing status report /compliance

report on 11.12.2018. AE(B) to remain present.



A.No. 403/17 31.07.2018



It is submitted that status report in pursuance

to order dated 21.11.2017 was filed in appeal no. 331/17.

This matter was disposed of on 01.06.2018.

Let the said file be attached with this file.

Put up for further orders on 01.10.2018.



A.No. 369/18 31.07.2018

Present : Ms. Shweta Badola, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for MCD alongwith

Sh. Vinay Kumar, L.I.

Neither record nor status report filed by the

respondent. Even advocate is also not engaged. Licensing

Inspector, Sh. Vinay Kumar, is present.

Appellant is praying for temporary desealing of the

property for removal of the articles. The appellant is tenant

and the question will arise regarding payment of penalty /

misuse charges.

Subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- upon the respondent,

detailed reply be filed for appeal, necessary record be

produced. Concerned Dy. Commissioner will appear in

person alongwith record.

Put up this matter for filing of status report / reply by

the respondent on 28.09.2018.



A.No. 384/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. V.K. Arora, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Mikhil Sharda, counsel for MCD.


Status report not filed. Record not produced.

Ld. counsel for appellant has placed on record copy

of order dated 05.07.2018 by Administrative Officer wherein

appellant has applied for temporary desealing and he has

been asked to deposit the misuse charges of Rs. 1,20,401/-.

Adjournment sought to deposit the said charges.

No explanation has been given as to why record is

not produced and status report not filed.

It is simply stated that appeal was not maintainable

due to delay of 140 days.

Respondent is burdened with costs of Rs. 5,000/- for

not filing the record and not filing the status report.

Concerned AE(B) is directed to remain present

alongwith record.

Put up this matter for filing of reply, record and status

report by the respondent on 22.10.2018.



A.No. 450/18 & 451/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Sahil Munjal, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for MCD.


Ld. counsel for appellant has referred the case of

Destination Cafe Private Ltd. Vs. NDMC in Writ Petition (C) No.

6557/2018, order dated 09.07.2018 of Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi in support of his contention that appeal is maintainable.

Ld. counsel for respondent at the very outset took

objection that the tenant who was occupying the property at the

time of impugned order has approached the Monitoring

Committee for the purpose of temporary desealing and therefore,

the landlord cannot file the appeal before this Tribunal once the

jurisdiction of the Monitoring Committee has been invoked for

temporary desealing.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that tenancy has been

terminated and appellant as owner of property has independent

right to approach the Tribunal and approaching by tenant to the

Monitoring Committee shall have no bearing on the same and its

maintainability.

Adjournment sought to file the termination of tenancy and

to submit further the property in question was not a residential

property before it was to be used for commercial use and as such

the observation in para no. 6 by the Hon’ble High Court that the

Monitoring Committee has to be approached only in case when

residential property will be used for industrial and commercial

purpose property will not be applicable in that case.

Put up this matter for arguments on maintainability of

appeal on 08.10.2018.

Short adjournment sought by the appellant but due to

heavy cause list in the months of August and September, short

adjournment is not possible.



M.No. 18/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. M. Hussain, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer for

North DMC. and Sh. Abdul Haq, JLO.


Status report filed stating that after the order passed

by the Tribunal on 10.07.2018, the file was sent to the

Additional Commissioner, City SP Zone, Head Quarter on

06.04.2018 in compliance of the order dated 06.02.2018 for

approval of permanent desealing of the property in question.

Additional Commissioner vide order dated

25.04.2018 has raised certain queries to be complied by the

Department. Some queries have been replied. Some

queries are yet to be replied and some time is required for

desealing of the property in question.

It is submitted that the order of this Tribunal has not

been challenged. Let the status report regarding

compliance be filed within three weeks.

Put up this matter for filing of status report by the

respondent and arguments on 03.10.2018.



A.No. 390/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Umesh Gupta, counsel for MCD alongwith

Sh. Abdul Haq, JLO and Sh. Jintender, JE(B).


Status report filed stating that as per the inspection

on 03.05.2018, unauthorized construction in the shape of

two rooms at back court yard was noticed and accordingly

action u/s 343 & 344 of the DMC Act for the booking dated

03.05.2018.

Show cause notice of the same date was issued and

sent through speed post and reply was filed by Manish

Bajaj, co-owner on 17.05.2018 stating that construction is

not a new construction and was built in June 2005 and he

has carried out only repair / renovation work. The reply

could not be considered as demolition order was already

passed on 14.05.2018.

Part demolition action has taken place on 26.06.2018

wherein one RCC panel at ground floor was demolished.

Further demolition action was fixed on 07.07.2018 but

action could not be taken as the property was found locked.

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks adjournment for final

arguments.

Respondent is directed to file further status report

regarding the action under impugned order.





A.No. 883/15 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Pradeep Sharma, counsel for appellant.


Status report not filed by the respondent which was

directed on 15.12.2017.

Adjournment sought to file the same within two

weeks.

Last and final opportunity is granted for filing the

status report, otherwise, Dy. Commissioner will appear in

person on next date of hearing.

Put up this matter for filing of status report as per the

previous orders on 12.10.2018.



A.No. 332/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Ajay Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Process not taken which was issued Dasti.

Appellant is directed to take necessary steps as per

previous order.

Put up this matter on 20.09.2018.



A.No. 216/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Satyanarayan, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Mukul Mohan, counsel for MCD alongwith

Sh. Vijay Pal, AE(B).


Record produced. Status report not filed.

As per record the FIR was lodged on 05.02.2018

regarding unauthorized construction in the shape of ground

floor to fourth floor and all types of building materials are

also lying.

Show cause notice was issued on the same day.

Copy was pasted at the site. Demolition order was passed

on 15.02.2018.

Ld. counsel for appellant at the very outset submitted

that there is no service of show cause notice upon the

appellant before passing the impugned demolition order

dated 15.02.2018.

On perusal of the original record, it is found that show

cause notice has been pasted on 07.02.2018 but nothing is

mentioned whether any photographs were taken or the

same has been done in the presence of any witness.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and

examined the record.

Service through pasting is permissible as per Section

444 of DMC Act in case owner / occupier could not be

served personally by handing over the summon to him.

Since this pasting is permissible in case of owner/occupier

but certain safeguard are required to be followed which

affects service through pasting i.e. photographs of the

pasting and citing of witness. The Commissioner, MCD in its

circular itself has given certain directions for service through

pasting vide circular dated 15.04.2010 which is as under:-

“It is observed that the service of show cause notice upon owner is found unsatisfactory and unreliable and, as such, most of the appeals, filed against the demolition orders, are allowed by the

A.No. 216/18 - 2 - courts for lack of service of show cause notice upon owner. It has, therefore, been decided that pasting of notice should be supported by photographic evidence. The JE concerned will ensure the photographic evidence of pasting of notice and such evidence will form part of U/C and sealing files. EE(B) of respective zone shall ensure the uploading of information regarding unauthorized construction on MCD website soon after the passing of the necessary orders for demolition”.

However, respondent officials have not taken the

photographs while pasting the show cause notice nor has

cited an independent witness to prove service through

pasting was done. Hence, the service of show cause notice

does not inspire much confidence. Hence, I hold that

respondent has failed to prove that service of Show Cause

Notice has been done.

I am in agreement with contention of Ld. counsel for

appellant that impugned order dated 15.02.2018 is liable to

be set aside in view of non compliance of mandatory

provisions of section 343 of the DMC Act. In this regard, I

relied upon the judgment of Mahinder Singh & others Vs.

MCD 34 (1988) DLT 118 wherein the Hon’ble High Court

held as under:-

“The service of notice of the show cause on the person concerned before passing the demolition order is mandatory. There is no question of any prejudice being caused or not being caused when a mandatory provision has not been complied with… 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.”

Accordingly, the impugned demolition order bearing

no. 83/UC/B-II/SZ/18 dated 15.02.2018 is hereby set aside

subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in the Prime

Minister Relief Fund. The matter is remanded back to the

Quasi Judicial Authority for deciding the same afresh.

A.No. 216/18 - 3 -

However, it is clarified that fresh show cause notice

shall not be issued to the appellant and this order will be

treated as show cause notice.

The respondent shall provide the opportunity of

submitting reply as well as give personal hearing to the

appellant who is directed to appear in the office of AE(B)

South Zone on 17.08.2018 at 3:00 p.m. The AE(B) or any

authorized officer, South Zone thereafter shall pass the

speaking order dealing with all the submissions, pleas and

the defences raised by the appellant and shall complete the

proceedings maximum 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) concerned. The appeal is, thus, disposed off. Appeal

file be consigned to record room. Original record be

returned to AE(B) concerned.

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

as prayed.

Reader is directed to prepare a miscellaneous file.

Put up for depositing costs and compliance on

13.11.2018.



A.No. 970/14 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Vijay Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD with

Sh. N.R. Meena, AE(B).

Status report filed stating that in pursuance of the

order dated 30.05.2018, the property was desealed on

06.07.2018 at 11.30 a.m. for taking measurement of ground

floor of the property in pursuance of Vikram Yadav who

claimed himself as the owner of the property in question in

the presence of local police and the measurements of

ground floor was taken. The detail of measurement is as per

annexure-B.

Ld. Counsel for respondent pointed out that in the

status report measurement is not complete in respect of

entire property which is comprising of ground floor, first

floor, second floor, and third floor. AE(B) is unable to give

the reason why the entire property was not inspected. No

action has been taken by the respondent regarding illegal

lock put by the tenant Mahesh Verma. The report is

ambiguous as to why the lock was put up after braking the

seal by the respondent.

AE(B) is directed to file detail status report after

desealing the property in the presence of the

owner/occupier and Mahesh Verma who has allegedly put

the lock claiming himself to be the tenant because the

appellant has stated that after inspection on 06.07.2018

Mahesh Verma has again put his lock.

Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that appeal

itself is not maintainable as the same has been filed by the

attorney claiming that son of the attorney are the owners of

the property in question.

A.No. 970/14

In view of the previous order of this Tribunal after the

status report submitted by the respondent with regard to the

measuring of the property the appeal will be withdrawn as

Vikram Yadav has already instituted a fresh appeal. The

question regarding maintainability of the appeal is to be

decided after the complete status report has been filed

regarding measurement and regarding compliance of the

order dated 30.06.2018.

Dy. Commissioner is directed to look into the matter

and give a detail report as to how the person has put his

lock on the seal of the department and how an unauthorized

person has stopped the MCD officials from temporarily

desealing the property for the purpose of measurement.

The further status report will be filed under the hand and

signature of the Dy. Commissioner.




as prayed.



A.No. 267/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Vijay Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Adjournment sought due to pendency of the another

appeal, for arguments on maintainability of this appeal.

Put up on 03.12.2018.



A.No. 205/18, 277/18 & 278/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Faheem, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Nitesh Gupta, counsel for respondent.

Record was filed after the matter was adjourned on

05.06.2018.

Status report not filed. Concerned AE(B) is not present.

As per original record, noting dated 22.02.2018 in

presence of the direction of High Court in Writ Petition No.431/16

in CM Appeal No.38875/2016 a survey of the area of NDSE-I,

New Delhi was conducted in respect of institutes/coaching

centers and tuition centers. During the said survey plot No.01,

Tamoor Nagar, New Delhi it was noticed that a portion i.e. ground

floor was being used as a coaching centre in the name and style

of M/s Patanjali Mega Store (in appeal No.205/18), M/s. Stress

Face Spa & Saloon (in appeal No.278/18) for commercial

purpose in violation of permissible sanction use of the said

premises and also against the MPD-2021. Accordingly a notice

to stop the misuse within 48 hours issued to the owner/occupier

with the direction to bring the property within permitted use as per

MPD-2021 and also file affidavit in the prescribed format.

Accordingly, notice u/s 345A of the DMC Act was issued on

14.03.2018 asking the appellant to stop the misuse within 48

hours and to file an affidavit in that regard.

The appellant has filed an affidavit before the Dy.

Commissioner on 19.03.2018 stating that he has rented out

ground floor, first floor and second floor of the property No.01,

Taimoor Nagar, New Delhi to M/s. Balaji Associates, M/s. Stress

Face Spa & Saloon & NGO for free health check up.

It is further stated that he had already paid conversion

charges for said property and also submitted the relevant

documents.

At page-4 in the appeal it is alleged that appellant has

deposited one time conversion charges and parking charges for

conversion of the property for commercial use in the year 2014

and as such is well within his rights to use the property for

commercial purposes and he has relied upon the documents

annexure A-3 (Colly).

A.No. 205/18, 277/18 & 278/18

It is stated that after submission of the necessary

documents on 18.03.2018, the property at first floor has not been

sealed and the appeal has been filed only against the show

cause notice.

There are issues regarding maintainability of the appeal

since it is stated that the fate of the show cause notice is not

known to the appellant and there is no record produced before

the Tribunal, if any sealing order has been passed regarding the

first floor and ground floor. It is simply stated that basement has

been sealed only.

Ld. Counsel for respondent seeks time to file detailed

status report which needs to be clarify whether the property can

be used for other activities as has been claimed by the appellant

or whether it falls on mixed land use or any notified road. Further

if any penalty or charges are to be paid by the appellant. Further

to clarify why no action has been taken after passing of the

sealing order regarding sealing of the property at first floor and

second floor and in case the reply was satisfactory whey the

notice has not been withdrawn as nothing is mentioned in the

original record produced.

Status report not filed. Concerned AE(B) is not present.

Respondent is burdened with the costs of Rs.5,000/0 in each

appeal.

Put up for filing the status report and arguments on

02.11.2018.

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

prayed.



A.No. 926/17 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. G.R. Verma, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. A.K. Sinha, AE(B).


Adjournment sought for filing reply of the application.

Put up this matter for filing reply of the application,

consideration and arguments on 07.09.2018.



A.No. 381/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Rajat Jain, intern for Sh. Pankaj Vivek,

counsel for appellant.

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 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

16.11.2018.



A.No. 796/17 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Kaptan Singh, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Ram Kishan, CLI, KB Zone.

Status report filed stating that sum of Rs.34,790/-

has been deposited vide G-8 receipt No.22412 dated

18.07.2018 as misuse charges with respondent to shop

No.17 & 18 shopping complex, Milan Cinema, Karam Pura

New Delhi.

Costs of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon the respondent

vide order dated 05.02.2018 has not been deposited.

Let same be deposited.

Put up this matter for arguments and orders on

06.09.2018.



A.No. 183/18 31.07.2018


File of appeal No.878/17 is attached with this appeal.

Put up for passing appropriate order on 29.08.2018.



A.No. 641/17, 642/17, 643/17, 786/17,787/17, 788/17, 789/17 & 790/17 31.07.2018


Sh. Dharamvir Gupta/ Sh. Umesh Gupta,

counsel for MCD.

Status report in compliance of the order dated

29.11.2017 filed stating that the site has been inspected on

30.07.2018 which reveals that property No. 4374-4375

Chowk Shahganj, Kucha Pandit, Delhi-6 and property

No.4376 to 4378, Chowk Shahganj, Kucha Pandit, Delhi-6

are two separate properties. The property No. Property No.

4374-4375 Chowk Shahganj, Kucha Pandit, Delhi-6

consists of ground floor to fifth floor and property No.4376 to

4378, Chowk Shahganj, Kucha Pandit, Delhi-6 consists of

ground floor to fourth floor. The site plan and photographs

attached.

Put up this matter arguments on 04.12.2018.



A.No. 453/15 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant

Sh. A.L. Agnihotri, counsel for respondent.

It is stated that amount has been deposited by the

appellant vide G-8 receipt No.57331 dated 12.02.2018 for

sum of Rs.37,040/-.

Ld. Counsel for respondent is directed to file

verification report of the said receipt alongwith status report

regarding for what purpose the property can be used or

there is any objection for permanent desealing of the

property in question.





A.No. 462/18. 31.07.2018


This is an appeal against demolition order dated

04.07.2018.

Issue notice of the appeal and application to the

respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B) is

directed to appear in person alongwith entire record of the

proceedings, status report and reply of the appeal on date

fixed. Record be deposited immediately in the Tribunal.

Put up this matter on 09.08.2018. Notice be given

Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 463/18. 31.07.2018


This is an appeal against sealing order dated

11.07.2018.







Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 1029/17 & 1032.17 31.07.2018

Present : Ms. Bandana, counsel for appellant.

File taken up today on the application filed u/s 151

CPC for placing on record the correct site plan / compliance

affidavit pursuant to order dated 07.12.2017.

Notice of the application be issued to the respondent

for the date already fixed i.e. 06.08.2018. Notice be issued

dasti.



A.No. 835/16 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Deepanshu Chouitani, counsel for

appellant.

File taken up today on the application for preponment

of the matter on the ground that EDMC is writing a letter

again asking the DDA for NOC.

In view of heavy pendency of the matters no ground

for preponement of the matter.

Adjourn for date already fixed i.e. 30.08.2018.



A.No. 33/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Navit Bansal, counsel for appellant.

File taken up today on the application for early

hearing and for directions to respondent for compliance of

order dated 31.05.2018.

It is stated that after filing of this application the order

dated 31.05.2018 has been complied with as such the

application be dismissed as withdrawn.

Accordingly the application is dismissed as

withdrawn.

Put up this matter on the date already fixed i.e.

10.08.2018.



A.No. 528/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant


05.07.2018.

Some photographs placed on record with respect to

the part demolition carried out by the respondent on

28.07.2018.

It is stated that appellant has already moved for

regularization of the property in question on 18.07.2018

alongwith requisite documents.







Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 498/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Davinder, counsel for appellant.

This is an appeal against sealing order dated

30.05.2018.







Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 422/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Ashish Sharma, counsel for appellant.


03.11.2017.






Put up this matter on 07.08.2018. Notice be given Dasti,

as prayed.



A.No. 678/16 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Prashant Sharma, counsel for appellant.

None for the respondent.

Status report not filed.

Subject to the costs of Rs.5,000/- on the respondent,

last opportunity is given to file the status report.

Concerned AE(B) to remain present on 01.11.2018.



A.No. 866/16 & 894/16 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Rohit Verma, proxy counsel for appellant.


Arguments were heard by the ld. Predecessor.

Put for fresh arguments on 10.12.2018.



A.No. 1184/15 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Arun Yadav, counsel for appellant.

None for the respondent.

Status report not filed as was directed vide order

dated 30.01.2018.


last opportunity is given to file the status report.

Concerned AE(B) to remain present on 02.11.2018.



A.No. 891/16 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Lokesh Ahlawat, proxy counsel for Sh.

C.P. Wig, counsel for appellant.


It is stated by ld. Counsel for respondent that the

case has been assigned to him after withdrawal of the

Vakalatnama of the previous counsel as informed by the

Nodal officer.

Adjournment sought to file the status report in

compliance of the order dated 08.12.2017.

Let the said status report be filed within four weeks.





A.No. 942/13 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Vineet Malhotra, counsel for appellant.

Sh. A.K. Jha, counsel for respondent.

Ms. Vinnie Sharma, counsel for Monitoring

Committee.

No objection to the status report has been filed by the

appellant as adjournment was sought by the appellant in

that regard on previous date.

An application is moved u/s 151 CPC by the

appellant. Copy supplied.

Put up this matter for filing reply and arguments on

the application alongwith final arguments on 03.12.2018.



A.No. 505/13 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Abhay Sahay, counsel for appellant.


Ms. Vinnie Sharma, counsel for Monitoring

Committee.

Sh. Priri Singh & Sh. Jagdish JSA from L&DO.

Status report not filed on behalf of the L&DO on the

ground that Virender Singh SSA who in possession of the

concerned file is on medical leave. Nothing is stated in that

regard in writing.

Engineer in Officer namely Sh. Pramod Kumar is the

head of enforcement section who is to file the status report.

He is directed to remain present in person on next date of

hearing in case the status report not filed within two weeks.

Copy of the order be given dasti to the officials of the

L&DO who are present in the court for compliance.

Put up this matter arguments on 09.10.2018.



A.No. 397/18 31.07.2018


An application for withdrawal of appeal filed on behalf

of the appellant.

Put up this matter for recording statement of

appellant on 08.08.2018.



A.No. 496/15 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. S.K. Gupta, proxy counsel for appellant.


Adjournment sought as main counsel is not available.

Put up this matter for arguments on 15.01.2019.



A.No. 300/17 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Rehan, proxy counsel for appellant.

Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Abdul Haq, JLO.

Sh. Praveen Kumar, counsel for intervener.

Status report filed.

Ld. Counsel for appellant seeks some more time to

file status report in terms of the order dated 18.12.2017 on

the grounds that AE(B) concerned has not carried out

inspection.

Status report in compliance of the order dated

18.12.2017 in which last and final opportunity was given for

filing status report, has not been filed as copy of the affidavit

has been misplaced.

Nothing is mentioned in the status report filed today

by the AE(B) and he has concealed the said fact.


last opportunity is given to file the status report in

compliance of the order dated 18.12.2017. Respondent is

at liberty to recover the costs from the salary of concerned

AE(B).





as prayed.



A.No. 54/18 & 497/14 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Kuldeep Sharma, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Amit Kumar, proxy counsel for

Sh. Naveen Grover, counsel for MCD.

Status report filed placed in appeal no. 54/18 stating

that construction as depicted in the affidavit and site plan

filed by the appellant tallies with the existing construction at

site.

It is stated on behalf of the respondent that property

is protected under NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions)

(Second Amendment) Act, 2017.

Part arguments heard.

It is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for respondent

that property is in the shape of shops. Respondent is

directed to clarify whether the shops in the property can be

used for commercial purpose in the area of unauthorized

colony having protection under The National Capital

Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second

(Amendment) Act, 2017.

Put up this matter for remaining arguments on

25.10.2018.



A.No. 142/17 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, proxy counsel for

appellant.

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


Adjournment sought on behalf of appellant as main

counsel is not available.

Put up this matter for arguments on maintainability of

appeal on 14.11.2018.



A.No. 357/15 31.07.2018



None for the applicant.

Reply to the application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC

filed by the appellant. Copy supplied.

Put up this matter for arguments on the said

application alongwith final arguments on 10.01.2019.




A.No. 356/15 31.07.2018



Put up this matter with connected appeal no. 357/15

on 10.01.2019.




A.No. 648/15 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Anil Sehgal, Counsel for appellant.


Status report filed in compliance of order dated

25.05.2018 stating that demolition program was fixed on

30.07.2018 and during the demolition the slab of one room

and two walls at ground floor were demolished. Further

action will be taken as per policy of the department.

Put up this matter for filing further action taken report

on 10.12.2018.



M.No. 09/18 31.07.2018

Present : Sh. Anil Sehgal, Counsel for appellant.


This is an application for restoration of appeal which

was dismissed for non-prosecution as well as in default.

Copy was supplied. No reply has been filed by the

respondent.

Adjournment sought.

Let the reply be filed within two weeks.

Put up this matter on 10.12.2018.



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. 31.07.2018

Present :



A.No. Statement of Sh. ON SA

RO&AC




RO&AC




RO&AC




RO&AC




RO&AC



A.No. Statement of Sh.

ON SA

RO&AC



Documents

Amcdonline.gov.in/at/dailyordersnew/373_31.07.2018.pdf · 2018-08-08 · A.No. 388/16 31.07.2018 Present : Sh. Dhruv Rajput, counsel for appellant. Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel