Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A.No. 280/18
22.10.2018 Present : Sh.Vikram Singh, counsel for the appellant.
Sh.Jatin Aggarwal, counsel for the respondent.
Appellant is not present.
Copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi dated 23.07.2018 is placed on record by the
counsel for the appellant.
Put up for appearance of appellant/further
proceedings on 12.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 846/16
22.10.2018 Present : Sh. Yashpal Sapra, counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Manjusha Jha, counsel for the respondent.
Status report in compliance of order dated
08.01.2018 filed stating that appellant was required to
pay an amount of Rs. 3,76,658/- on account of 10 times
penalty for conversion charges (details as mentioned in
para no.4).
Put up for orders/clarifications if any on
22.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 971/13, 976/13, 1087/13
22.10.2018 Present : Sh. Sandeep Singh Yadav, counsel for the
appellant (appeal no. 976/13).
None for appellant Anjana Bansal.
Sh.H.R.Aggarwal/ Sh. Arbind Jha/Ms. Manjusha
Jha/ counsel for the respondent/EDMC.
Sh. Chanchal Kumar/Sh R.K. Singh counsel for
the DDA alongwith Nodal Officer Ms. Anju
Sharma.
Status reports filed. In appeal no.971/13, it is
stated that appellant/Suresh Kumar Jain has not
deposited the misuse charges of Rs.3,60,768/- and has
not filed the objection. In appeal no. 976/13,
appellant/Anjana Bansal has not deposited the misuse
charges of Rs. 1,17,830/- and has not filed any
objections. In appeal no. 1087/13, appellant/Anju Dhawan
has not deposited the misuse charges of Rs. 13,958/-
and no counsel is present on her behalf.
Adjournment sought to file objections.
Put up for that purpose and for final arguments
on 13.05.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 1031/13,
22.10.2018 Present : Sh. Arvind Nagar proxy counsel for Sh. Ravinder
Sehrawat counsel for appellant
Ms. Manjusha Jha/ counsel for the
respondent/EDMC.
Sh. Chanchal Kumar/Sh R.K. Singh counsel for
the DDA alongwith Nodal Officer Ms. Anju
Sharma.
Status reports filed stating that appellant has
deposited the misuse charges of Rs. 20,966/-. Copy
supplied.
Put up for final arguments if any/orders on
01.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 892/17
22.10.2018 Present : Ms. Bandana, counsel for the appellant.
Sh.V.K. Aggarwal counsel for the respondent.
Adjournment sought to file reply to the
application u/o 22 R1 . Copy supplied today.
Counsel for appellant has placed on record
copy of the receipt dated 05.10.2018 regarding deposit of
misuse charges. Copy supplied.
Put up for reply/arguments/ clarification on
03.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 706/15
22.10.2018 Present : Sh.V.K. Bajaj, counsel for the appellant.
Sh.A.L.Agnihotri, counsel for the respondent.
Ms. Komal proxy counsel for Sh. Praveen Suri
counsel for the applicant with applicant.
Sh. Chanchal Kumar counsel for the DDA
alongwith Nodal Officer Ms. Anju Sharma.
Part arguments heard.
Put up for remaining arguments on 05.02.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 268/16
22.10.2018 Present : Mohd. Zafar Abbas, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal counsel for the respondent.
Adjournment sought for arguments.
Put up for final arguments on 28.02.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 229/17, 230/17, 231/17, 232/17
22.10.2018 Present : Sh.Zafar Abbas, Sh. Sanjiv Arora, Sh. Ishan
Jayant Tewari, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for EDMC
(appeal no. 229/17).
Sh. Sandeep Gupta, counsel for EDMC in
remaining appeals. Vakalatnama on behalf of
respondent filed.
Counsel for the appellant at the very outset
submitted that shortcomings as noted in order dated
30.07.2018 from serial no. 1 to 4 has been rectified and
subsequently with respect to plot no. 278 and 279 Guru
Ram Dass Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi (subject property in
appeal no. 232/17 and 229/17) sanctioned building plan
has been issued.
Adjournment sought. Respondent is
directed to fie status report in view of the submissions
made today by the counsel for the appellant.
On 30.07.2018 appellant was directed to file
affidavit stating that order dated 20.04.2017 has been
complied with and regularization application has been
rejected wrongly.
Adjournment sought to file said affidavit
also.
Put up for compliance and status report by
the respondent on 01.02.2019.
Interim orders, if any, to continue till next
date of hearing.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 847/14
22.10.2018 Present : Sh.Vimal Dhingra, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for SDMC.
Status report as find mentioned received on
Whatapp by the counsel for respondent on 22.01.2018
was filed on 23.01.2018.
Fresh arguments heard.
Put up for clarifications if any/orders on
15.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 515/18
22.10.2018 Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi , counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Rajiv Kumar,counsel for the respondent and filed
vakalatnama.
Concerned AE(B) Sh. D.P.Sharma.
Fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of appellant filed.
Fresh status report filed stating that
demolition order dated 26.06.2018 was served upon Sh.
Raj Kumar Chaudhary, husband of the appellant and no
reply was filed. It is further stated that Raj Kumar
Chaudhary husband of the appellant filed reply on
27.06.2018 to the first show cause notice dated
08.06.2018. However, before passing the demolition
order dated 26.07.2018 reply to the show cause notice
dated 08.06.2018 was also examined by the
respondent/EDMC. It is clarified by the counsel for the
respondent that subsequent demolition order was passed
on 26.07.2018 in view of the consideration of reply dated
27.06.2018 which was received after passing of the
demolition order dated 26.06.2018. It is further submitted
that status report filed may be considered as not
contradictory to the record of the respondent. Regarding
verification of the structure as shown in the affidavit
property was inspected on 18.10.2018 for comparison.
The measurement which was shown in the affidavit are
almost same . however, the projection with structure on
municipal land at first floor and second floor has not
been shown in the affidavit.
Counsel for the appellant seeks
adjournment to inspect the record and to submit
arguments.
Put up for final arguments on 15.05.2019.
Interim orders, if any, to continue till next
date of hearing.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 245/17
22.10.2018 Present : Mohd Zamil one of the appellant in person
Sh.V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for the North DMC.
None for respondent no. 6 & 7.
One of the appellant has moved an
application for filing fresh address of the respondent no. 2
to 5.
It seems that fresh address supplied by the
appellant is with regard to the service upon respondent
no. 2 to 5. Let fresh notice be issued to respondent no. 2
to 5 on fresh address.
Cost of Rs. 2000/- imposed upon the
appellant on 20.07.2018 not deposited. He is directed to
deposit the same within a week.
Put up for service of respondent no. 2 to 5
on fresh address on 20.01.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 802/17
22.10.2018 Present : Sh.K.B.Gupta, counsel for the appellant.
Sh.Madan Sagar, counsel for the respondent.
None for Monitoring Committee.
Status report in compliance of order dated
08.10.2018 filed stating that property abuts on
master/zonal plan road having right of way more than 18
meters. It can be used for certain specified activities as
stipulated in MPD-2021 in chapter-15 (clase15.7.3) under
the head of Other Activity.
Regarding difference of conversion/ parking
charges payable by the appellant, same are not payable
as property is lying sealed since 30.11.2006 and there
was no notification regarding fixation of the charges on
account of conversion/ mixed used charges. However,
MPD-2021 governing and regulating use of particular
property, even came into being or inception on
07.02.2017 and notification dated 22.06.2007 for
conversion charges has its retrospective effect, the
owner/user are liable to pay charges for the financial year
2006-07. The appellant has deposited the following
charges as find mentioned in para no.4. It is further
submitted that appellant is not liable to pay any difference
of conversion/parking charges since the property is lying
sealed since 06.11.2006. Copy of status report supplied
to the counsel for the appellant.
Counsel for the appellant has argued that
appeal is with regard to ground floor only.
Regarding objection of the Monitoring
Committee about unauthorized construction at fourth
floor, respondent is directed to file status report in that
regard.
A.No. 802/17 -2-
Ld Counsel for the appellant further argued
that since property was sealed in the year 2006 is having
protection under the National Capital Territory of Delhi
Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act,
2017 dated 31.12.2017.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that
concerned AE(B) be called to clarify the said point and to
make statement in that regard.
Put up for appearance of concerned AE(B)
and remaining arguments on 30.10.2018.
Copy of this order be given dasti.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No.
22.10.2018 Present : Sh. , counsel for the appellant.
Sh. counsel for the respondent.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 267/15
22.10.2018 Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi , counsel for the appellant.
Ms.Praveen Sharma, counsel for the respondent.
Status report in compliance of order dated
14.09.2018 filed stating that demolition action taken on
26.11.2012 and the objectionable portion raised in rear
portion of first floor in the shape of room was completely
demolished. It is further stated that cause of action has
initiated on 14.05.2012 still persisted as there are
deviations/excess coverage at ground floor, first floor and
second floor; for the purpose of ascertaining exact
quantum of deviations, it is prerequisite to have copy of
sanctioned building plan so that a detailed report can be
placed before this Tribunal. Respondent is directed to
make best efforts to get the copy of the sanctioned
building plan and thereafter file the status report.
Counsel for the appellant pointed out that
present appeal is with regard to property no. 52/74
C.R.Park New Delhi and present status report is with
regard to property no. 52/69 C.R. Park in compliance of
order dated 21.07.2017. It is evident from the status
report filed today that demolition action is still required in
the property no. 52/69 in pursuance to the demolition
order. The reasons for not completing the action is not
satisfactory and is ambiguous. Respondent is directed to
file complete status report regarding action taken in
pursuance to the demolition order qua the property no.
52/69,C.R.Park, New Delhi.Concerned AE(B) to remain
present for explanation .
Part arguments heard. Adjournment sought
for further arguments.
A.No. 267/15 -2-
Put up for remaining arguments/ filing of
complete status report with regard to action taken on
08.01.2019.
Interim orders, if any, to continue till next
date of hearing. Copy of this order be given dasti.
Copy of this order as well as previous order
be placed before the concerned Dy. Commissioner for
information and necessary action.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 382/16
22.10.2018 Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi , counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Part arguments heard.
Put up this matter for remaining arguments on
17.01.2019.
Both the parties are directed to file written brief
submissions not exceeding to 5 pages within a week if not
filed.
Interim orders, if any, to continue till next
date of hearing.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 875/15
22.10.2018 Present : None for the appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal counsel for the respondent
alongwith concerned AE(B).
Status report filed stating that property was
desealed on 04.09.2018 for dismantling. As per
inspection of JE(B) on 15.10.2018 found that appellant
has not dismantled the tower.
On 01.06.2018 Sh. Manish Kumar Singh,
AR of the appellant has made the statement for
dismantling the tower and disposal of the appeal. In view
of the said statement made by the AR of the appellant on
01.06.2018 appeal is dismissed. Respondent is at liberty
to take action as per law in pursuance to the demolition
order.
Respondent is directed to file action taken
report on 14.12.2018. Registrar is directed to prepare a
miscellaneous file for this purpose.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 61/18, 62/18
22.10.2018 Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi , counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta,counsel for the respondent.
Written submission were filed by the
appellant.
Counsel for respondent seeks some more
time to file the written submissions. Let the same be filed
within a week. Advance copy of the written submission
be supplied by the respondent to the appellant.
Put up for perusal of written
submissions/arguments if any on 16.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 1078/15
22.10.2018 Present : None for the appellant.
Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal officer on behalf of
respondent.
Status report filed stating that as per
inspection done on 18.10.2018 it was noticed that the
tower in question has been dismantled.
Authorized Representative of appellant has
already made statement on 01.06.2018 for dismissal of
the appeal.
Since the tower has been dismantled, the
appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to
Record Room. Respondent is at liberty to take action as
per law.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 73/16
22.10.2018 Present : None for the appellant.
Sh.Mohit Sharma, counsel for the respondent.
Status report not filed. Respondent is
directed to file status report regarding dismantling of
tower in response to order dated 31.08.2018 within two
weeks.
Put up for filing status report on 15.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
22.10.2018
A.No. 780/16 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Amit Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. R.N.Vats, counsel for respondent.
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
10.4.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 678/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. R.B. Singh, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, counsel for SDMC.
Memo of appearance filed by Sh. Sanjeev
Kumar Yadav and seeks time to file Vakalatnama.
Record not produced.
AE(B) is absent despite service on
11.10.2018.
Dy. Commissioner concerned to appear in
person alongwith record on 26.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 532/18 22.10.2018
Present : None for the appellant.
It seems that process has not been taken by
the appellant which was given dasti.
Issue notice to the respondent to produce the
record on 12.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 729/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dhananjay Mehlwat counsel for the appellant
Sh. Dinesh Khatri counsel for respondent.
Memo of appearance filed by Sh. Dinesh
Khatri and seeks time to file Vakalatnama.
Record not produced on the ground that
record is to be produced by the headquarter.
Nodal Officer is directed to inform the
headquarter to produce the record tomorrow failing which
Dy. Commissioner concerned will appear in person.
Put up on 23.10.2018.
Copy of the order be given Dasti.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 676/18, 574/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Gagandeep Panwar, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Mohit Sharma counsel for EDMC (appeal no.
676/18).
Sh. Shashikant Sharma counsel for EDMC
(appeal no. 574/18).
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
AE(B) Sh. S.K. Katara is present and states that he
has not brought the record regarding demolition
proceedings but states that demolition order has already
been passed.
Status report filed regarding sealing appeal bearing
no. 676/18 stating that property has been constructed
without getting Sanctioned Building Plan and was booked
for demolition on 05.09.2017. Sealing show cause notice
was given on 15.02.2018 through speed post and no reply
was received. Sealing order was passed on 21.05.2018 by
the competent authority. Vacation notice u/s 349 of DMC
Act was issued on 03.07.2018. During sealing/demolition
program dated 04.07.2018 the property was sealed at 8
points i.e 2 points at basement, 2 shutter at ground floor and
showroom, 2 points at back side and 1 point at gate of
staircase at 2nd floor. An application for desealing the
property was submitted to Dy. Commissioner Shahdara
North zone on 19.07.2018. Regarding measurements given
in the affidavit of the structure, it is stated that
measurements were not correct as per actual
measurements given in para no.9.
Appellant is directed to clarify the differences in the
measurements given by them in the affidavit viz-a-viz
measurements mentioned in the status report.
A.No. 676/18, 574/18 -2-
Adjournment sought to produce the record regarding
demolition of the property. Respondent is directed to clarify
whether the property is having any protection under special
laws as is being claimed by the appellant wherein it is stated
that property has been constructed in the year 2011-12 after
it was purchased vide registered Sale Deed dated
28.09.2012.
Put up for producing the original record regarding
demolition order /clarification in the status report regarding
protection if any on 27.11.2018.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 145/16 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Tarun Aggarwal, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Sandeep Manglik, Nodal Officer for North
DMC alongwith Ms. Sunita Saryavanshi,
AZI/CLZ and Sh. Suresh Dua, AE(B).
Copy of property tax deposited by the appellant has
been filed.
Status report filed stating that property details have
been obtained from the House Tax Department wherein
appellant has filed property tax for the covered area of 10
sqm. in the year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. In the
year 2016-17 the property tax for the covered area of 34
sqm. has been filed by the appellant. The structure factor
for the year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 has been shown
as 0.70 whereas in the PTR of 2016-17 the structure factor
is shown as 1.00. It is further submitted that the property in
question is situated in an unauthorized colony.
The above details shows that till the year 2015-16 the
property in question was having a covered area of 10 sqm.
which was enhanced to 34 sqm. during the year 2016-17.
As such the property is not protected from demolition under
The National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special
Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act, 2017. Copy of status
report alongwith copy of property tax record supplied to
counsel for appellant.
Adjournment sought.
Put up this matter for filing objections to the status
report and final arguments on 14.01.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 995/17 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Subhash Dagar, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. Pradeep Sharma, L.I.
Copy of chain of ownership documents filed by the
appellant. Original shown and returned.
Arguments heard.
Put up this matter for clarifications, if any / orders on
31.10.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 384/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. V.K. Arora, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Sarita Gaur, ALO for North DMC
alongwith Sh. Pradeep Sharma, L.I.
Status report filed by the AO, City SP Zone stating
that back portion of the property at ground floor was sealed
on 20.12.2017 on account of misuse after following the
process under section 345-A of DMC Act on 19.09.2017.
Smt. Sunita Goyal has made an application for
temporary dealing of the property for removal of machinery
and goods.
No order has been passed by the competent
authority for desealing. However, in compliance of the
directions of Addl. Commissioner, misuse charges were
calculated and given to the appellant.
Appellant has deposited the misuse charges on
14.09.2018 vide G8 Receipt No. 18021 to the tune of Rs.
1,20,401/-. Since the property situated in non-confirming /
residential area, industrial activities are not allowed.
Arguments heard.
Put up this matter for clarification, if any / orders on
30.10.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 492/17 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Satish Kumar, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Tarun Sabharwal, counsel for MCD.
Fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of appellant filed.
It is stated by counsel for appellant that regularization
application has been filed by the appellant on 28.09.2018.
Put up this matter for filing status report regarding
decision of regularization application and further
proceedings on 05.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 690/13 22.10.2018
Present : Ms. Radha Yadav, proxy counsel for Sh. J.J.
Tyagi, counsel for appellant.
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Appellant has not deposited the misuse charges
despite seeking four weeks time on the ground that
appellant is in Dehradun as his son is suffering from
dengue.
Two weeks time sought.
Put up this matter for compliance of previous orders
regarding deposit of misuse charges on 26.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 1025/17 22.10.2018
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Sarvesh Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh.
Anand Prakash, counsel for MCD.
None has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Put up this matter for remaining arguments as per the
previous order / further proceedings on 08.01.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
P.No. 29/13 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. S.K. Dubey, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Ajay Gautam, EE(B), Mohd. Idris, AE(B),
Sh. D. Chowdhary, ALO and Ms. Renu Soni,
Nodal Officer for SDMC.
Sh. Dev Bharti, proxy counsel for Ms. Dipti
Dogra, counsel for DDA alongwith Ms. Anju
Sharma, JLO for DDA.
Status report filed in compliance of order dated
16.01.2018 signed by Commissioner, SDMC stating that
upon having the knowledge of order dated 27.11.2017 of
this Tribunal, a meeting was arranged with Vice-Chairman,
DDA on 15.06.2018 in terms of the directions of this
Tribunal. Regarding taking appropriate disciplinary action
against the erring officials who delayed the processing,
necessary show cause notice in this regard has been issued
/ served upon the concerned officials who were remained
posted during the relevant period of time and responsible for
the delay in compliance of order dated 27.11.2017. Copy of
show cause notice dated 05.10.2018 as issued in this
regard is annexed herewith as Annexure-B. Further action
will be taken in due course by following due process in this
regard.
It is further stated that regarding present
regularization application, the same is entirely distinct and
different for the reason that structures to be regularized are
enormous and had come up without getting the building
plan sanctioned. The sanction of such structures requires a
number of statutory clearances / NOCs such as approval
from Delhi Urban Art Commissioner (DUAC), NOC from
CFO / DFS, change of land use from DDA etc. The said
requirement is not on record in view of the given status of
structures which are unauthorized.
P.No. 29/13 - 2 -
The regularization is last stage of process. Before
regularization, certain issues need to be got addressed and
settled in consultation and approval of DDA, which is
apparent from the minutes of the meeting.
It is further stated that as per MPD-2001, MPD-2021
and ZDP of Zone-F, the land use of site under reference is
“Recreational (City Park, District Park, Community Park).
Apparently, the existing use of land is in contravention of
permitted use. Therefore, change of land use from DDA is
first and foremost requirement in this case. The zonal office
of respondent has already taken necessary steps in this
regard.
In view of status of structures and requirement of a
number of statutory of clearances, the application for
regularization of structures will take time to finalize. The
zonal authorities have been instructed to ensure timely
compliance of orders of this Tribunal in future. Copy of
status report supplied to counsel for appellant.
Ld. counsel for appellant pointed out that the
compliance of the directions given to the appellant vide
order 05.07.2018 has not been done on 11.09.2018.
Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that the
documents submitted by the appellant needs time for
scrutiny and three months time sought.
Put up this matter for filing status report of action
taken with regard to the compliance by the appellant of the
requirements of the respondent to proceed further in the
matter towards the regularization of the structure.
Respondent is further directed to file status report
regarding disciplinary action taken in pursuance to the show
cause notice given to the delinquent employees.
Appellant is directed to remain regularly in touch with
the concerned officers which will initiate the proceedings
and he will take necessary steps with regard to the
documents submitted by the appellant.
P.No. 29/13 - 3 -
Put up this matter for compliance of the directions
and further proceedings on 19.12.2018.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 388/16 22.10.2018
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Put up this matter again during the course of day for
withdrawal of the appeal.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
03.00 pm
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant
despite several calls since morning.
It is 3.00 p.m.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed in default and for
non-prosecution. Respondent is at liberty to take action in
the property in question in pursuance of impugned order
and file status report regarding any further action is required
or not.
The file of the department, if any, be returned to the
respondent alongwith copy of this order.
File be consigned to record room.
Registrar is directed to prepare a miscellaneous file
for the purpose of filing status report / action taken report by
the respondent on 31.10.2018.
Copy of the order be given Dasti, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 756/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. G.R. Verma, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against sealing order dated
06.09.2018. The property is stated to have been sealed on
01.10.2018.
It is stated that the second floor of the property was
got regularized on 30.12.2008. The first floor was
purchased in the year 1999 and exists in the same position
and is having protection under The National Capital
Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second
(Amendment) Act, 2017.
It is further submitted that the property has been
sealed because of mala-fide intention as some person is
having eyes on the property which exists on commercial
road.
The appellant is now residing on rent.
Ld. counsel for appellant has prayed for short date.
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.
Put up this matter on 29.10.2018.
Notice be given Dasti, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 1026/17 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. S.D. Ansari, counsel for appellant.
File taken up today in pursuance of order dated
12.10.2018 listed before Ld. District & Session Judge (HQ)
in MCD Appl. No. 1/18 wherein parties were directed to
appear today for fixing the date for arguments.
Sh. S.D. Ansari, counsel for appellant is present
today. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
As per the directions of Ld. District & Session Judge,
appellant as well as respondent will be given only one
opportunity for addressing the arguments and no
adjournment shall be granted as they cannot seek any
adjournment to address the arguments.
The matter is already listed for 28.11.2018.
Put up this matter for arguments on the date already
fixed i.e. 28.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 265/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Arvind Aggarwal (advocate), appellant
no.5 in person.
File taken up today on an application under section
347(C)(7) of DMC Act r/w section 31(C) of DDA Act for
summoning the witness alongwith documents from the
respondent.
Let the notice of the application be issued to the
respondent for date already fixed i.e. on 07.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 791/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. R.K. Goyal, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against demolition order dated
20.08.2018 which was received by the appellant on
18.09.2018.
It is further submitted that the show cause notice was
never received by the appellant.
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.
Put up this matter on 26.10.2018. Notice be given
Dasti, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 783/18 22.10.2018
Present : Ms. Divya Upadhyay, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against sealing order dated
25.09.2018. Property is stated to have been sealed on the
same day.
Appeal against the demolition order is listed for
15.11.2018.
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.
Put up this matter on 15.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 787/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Ramesh Chand, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against sealing order dated
14.09.2018. Property is stated to have been sealed on
25.09.2018.
Ld. counsel for appellant stated that reply filed duly
received with the office of Dy. Commissioner is not
considered while passing the sealing order.
It is further stated that ground floor of the property
was being used for car parking and godown.
It is further stated that the appellant was forced to
vacate the premises despite it was not use of any
commercial / industrial purpose and they were forced with
the help of police force and thereafter the premises was
forcibly sealed.
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 28.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 754/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against the order of rejection of
regularization application dated 01.08.2018.
Appeal against demolition order is listed for
28.01.2019.
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 28.01.2019. Notice be given
Dasti, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 786/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. G.R. Verma, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against the order of rejection of
regularization application dated 05.09.2018 alongwith
application seeking condonation of delay.
Appeal against demolition of the property is listed for
25.10.2018.
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 25.10.2018.
Notice be given Dasti, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 796/17 22.10.2018
Present : None for appellant.
None for respondent.
The matter was listed for clarification as no proper
original documents filed by the appellant.
Let court notice be issued to the appellant to file the
title documents on 13.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 813/14 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer for North DMC
alongwith Sh. B.P. Singh, AE(B).
He has ready to make statement regarding
restoration of the walls for removal of the property was
booked at ground floor at the time of booking of ground floor
was owned by Ms. Simrat Katyal who was owner, brother-
in-law of Simrat Katyal has purchased it.
It is submitted that it is an ancestral house where
appellant as well as respondent no. 2 were living for more
than 50 years. Concerned AE(B) is directed to file clear-cut
status report regarding the use of entire building owner by
the appellant as well as brother in law who has now
purchased the ground floor.
Further, AE(B) is directed to clarify about the nature
of road / property can be used for what purpose whether it is
a mixed land use or notified road or a commercial road
where the property abuts.
Appellant is directed to remain present on next date
of hearing.
Put up this matter on 02.11.2018 for further
proceedings.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 616/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Shantanu Bhardwaj, counsel for appellant
alongwith appellant.
Sh. Vijay Tyagi, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Rakesh Rawat, Supdt. General Branch.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Record not produced on the ground that dealing clerk
was on leave.
Ld. counsel for appellant states that the property was
sealed for want of required licence and the required licence
was issued by the respondent on 23.11.2017 and the
property was sealed on 27.10.2017.
It is further stated that the appellant has got the
licence on 27.11.2017 and after obtaining the same,
appellant has applied for desealing.
It is further submitted that in the vicinity there are
various shops in the similar nature and the same are not
sealed.
Respondent is directed to take action on the
application of appellant moved for desealing after obtaining
the licence and file the status report alongwith original
record of the proceedings.
In case, the record not produced and status report
not filed, Dy. Commissioner concerned will appear in person
on next date of hearing.
Respondent is further directed to clarify / file status
report regarding misuse charges / penalty charges if any,
and for what purpose, the premises can be used.
Put up this matter for filing status report by the
respondent and arguments on 26.10.2018.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 448/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. M. Hussain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Status report filed stating that sealing notice under
section 345-A of the DMC Act was issued on 27.04.2018
which was served through speed post. Reply was received
on 04.05.2018. Personal hearing was offered for
01.06.2018.
After hearing, sealing order was passed on
20.06.2018 and the property was sealed at ground floor at
18 points, first floor and second floor sealed one point each,
third floor sealed at three points, fourth floor sealed at one
point. Main entry of first floor to fourth floor sealed at ground
floor.
Property is lying sealed total 25 points.
Ld. counsel for appellant submitted that connected
appeal is listed for 26.11.2018.
At request, put up this matter for consideration /
arguments on 26.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 177/18 & 639/18 22.10.2018
Present : Ms. Pooja, proxy counsel for Sh. S.S. Tomar,
counsel for appellant.
Ms. Nagina Jain / Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, proxy
counsel for Sh. Harbans Kaushal, counsel for
MCD alongwith Sh. Sanjay Gupta, ALO.
Vakalatnama of Sh. Harbans Kaushal on behalf of
respondent filed in appeal no. 639/18.
Status report filed stating that property was inspected
on 03.10.2018 in the presence of representatives of the
appellant. The details of deviations against the sanctioned
building plan starting from basement to stilt, ground floor,
first floor, second floor, third floor and terrace floor has been
given in details.
Copy of status report supplied to the appellant with
the directions to bring the property within the parameters of
Sanctioned Building Plan by seeking regularization of
compoundable areas and to demolish the non-
compoundable areas in the entire property. With regard to
the unauthorized construction qua the terrace floor which is
not permissible except the toilet, appellant is directed to
demolish the same itself otherwise respondent is at liberty
to take action as per law.
Property is stated to be under construction.
Put up this matter for reply on the application seeking
condonation of delay / filing objections if any to the status
report filed by the respondent / compliances of the
directions issued today on 10.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018
A.No. 583/18 & 175/18 22.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. Anurag Sharma, JE(B).
Fresh Vakalatnama filed on behalf of appellant.
Vakalatnama of Sh. Dharamvir Gupta on behalf of
respondent filed.
Status report filed stating that property was booked
for unauthorized construction on 04.12.2017. Show cause
notice was issued. Demolition order was passed on
13.12.2017. Demolition action took place on 08.01.2018 at
the roof of third floor, roof of seven rooms demolished fully,
roof of two stores and two kitchens was also demolished,
iron girders of demolished rooms and portions also
demolished and cut down with the help of iron gas cutter
and three partition walls also demolished.
Sealing show cause notice u/s 345-A of DMC Act
was sent to the appellant through speed post on 25.07.2018
to which reply was filed on 08.08.2018 alongwith certain
documents claiming the property to be old constructed and
permissible repairs carried out on the stilt structure without
any addition, alteration or structural changes in the property.
Appellant did not seek any personal hearing and as such
sealing order was passed on 20.09.2018.
It is further stated that photographs were taken on
08.06.2018 depict that new construction was going on.
Work stop notice was issued on 13.06.2018 and 23.06.2018
to SHO, Sabzi Mandi as well as to the owner but he failed to
stop the construction.
The existing construction has been compared with
the construction shown in the affidavit dated 29.08.2018 and
the details mentioned in the affidavit does not tally with the
existing construction. Site plan has been prepared of the
property and annexed alongwith status report.
A.No. 583/18 & 175/18 - 2 -
The deviations in the site plan vis-à-vis structure
mentioned in the affidavit have been shown in para no. 3 of
status report at four points.
Ld. counsel for appellant has submitted that the
appellant has already applied for regularization on
18.10.2018.
Respondent is directed to file status report regarding
the said application. Copy of the application supplied to the
respondent.
Appellant is directed to clarify the differences in the
structure mentioned in the affidavit vis-à-vis status report
and in case, there was deficiency in the affidavit, fresh
affidavit be filed and supplied to the AE(B) within a week,
failing which necessary adverse orders will be passed on
next date of hearing.
Ld. counsel for appellant pointed out that the property
number has been mentioned as BC-400/3 in the order dated
27.08.2018 whereas the correct property number is BC-
100/3.
The said order dated 27.08.2018 is ordered to be
amended to that extent wherein property number be read as
BC-100/3 instead of BC-400/3.
Put up this matter for filing status report regarding the
regularization application by the respondent and arguments
on 10.04.2019.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 22.10.2018