Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A.No. 258/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Ashutosh proxy counsel for Sh. Amit
Kumar, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Mikhil Sharda, counsel for respondent
alongwith Sh. Ravi Kumar, AE(B).
Status report filed. Original record has already
produced.
This appeal pertains to the property No.205, back
portion, Munirka Village.
As per original record, the property was booked on
26.05.2018 for unauthorized construction in the shape of
ground floor to part fifth floor. Show cause notice was
issued on the same day which was served by way of
pasting. No photographs of the pasting, is placed on
record.
AE(B) submitted that notice was duly served upon
the appellant who was appeared and filed the reply and join
the proceedings and thereafter speaking order dated
27.02.2018 was passed.
In the speaking order appellant was directed to
demolish unauthorized construction of fourth floor and part
fifth floor because the remaining property was found old
constructed.
As per status report, respondent has extended the
relief of the construction raised up to third floor in terms of
immunity provided in respect of properties or construction
in existence prior to 01.06.2014 upto 31.12.2020. No action
has been taken after passing of the impugned order at
fourth floor and fifth floor in pursuance of the impugned
order.
Orally it is submitted by the AE(B) that he has issued
a vacation notice of fourth floor and part fifth floor which are
occupied.
Proxy counsel for appellant seeks adjournment to
argue on interim application.
A.No. 258/18
On perusal of the appeal, it is found that the
appellant has not placed on record any documents to show
that the fourth and part fifth floor exists before 01.06.2014.
Respondent is at liberty to take action on fourth floor
and part fifth floor in pursuance of the demolition order
dated 27.02.2018.
Action taken report be filed on next date of hearing.
Put up for that purpose and for final arguments / filing
of further documents, if any on 12.04.2019.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 721/17 & 728/`17 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Fauzad Abbasi, proxy counsel for Mohd.
Amanullah, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. B.P. Dubey, AE(B).
Status report in compliance of the order dated
16.01.2018 filed stating that appellant in the appeal has
stated that his property has been booked as J-49. The
area JE(B) has inspected the said property and found that
property of the appellant i.e. Ms. Seema Bisht is J-49, East
Vinod Nagar, which is old number and now new number of
the same property is J-21, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi. The
copy of the status report supplied.
Put up for arguments on 23.07.2019. Interim stay, if
any, is extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 725/17 & 726/`17 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Fauzad Abbasi, proxy counsel for Mohd.
Amanullah, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shekhar, proxy counsel for Sh. Sandeep
Kaushik, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. B.P.
Dubey, AE(B).
Status report filed stating that regularization
application dated 15.02.2018 has been rejected and the
rejection order was communicated to the appellant on
16.11.2018 through speed post. Copy of status report
supplied.
Put up for arguments on 23.07.2019. Interim stay, if
any, is extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 716/17 & 720/`17 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Fauzad Abbasi, proxy counsel for Mohd.
Amanullah, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, proxy counsel for Sh.
Shashi Kant, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
B.P. Dubey, AE(B).
Status report filed stating that regularization
application dated 15.02.2018 has been rejected and the
rejection order was communicated to the appellant on
16.11.2018 through speed post. Copy of status report
supplied.
Put up for arguments on 23.07.2019. Interim stay, if
any, is extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 722/17 & 727/`17 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Fauzad Abbasi, proxy counsel for Mohd.
Amanullah, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. B.P. Dubey, AE(B).
It is stated that notice has been sent to the appellant
regarding withdrawal of the Vakalatnama, however, proof of
the service of the said notice not filed.
Adjournment sought to file the proof of the service of
the notice upon the appellant on next date of hearing.
In the meantime court notice be issued to the
appellant to appear in person on date fixed.
Put up for appearance of the appellant and
arguments on 23.07.2019. Interim stay, if any, is extended
till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 125/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Vimal Dhingra alongwith Sh. Bhopal Singh
and Shahzad Hussain, Advocate.
Sh. Madan Sagar, counsel for respondent.
On the last date, ld. counsel for appellant sought
adjournment to file appeal against the demolition order
because the present appeal has been filed against the work
stop notice. The appellant has not challenged the
demolition order before this Tribunal. The present appeal is
against the work stop notice is not maintainable.
Counsel for appellant submits that at the time when
this appeal was filed and work stop notice was issued, there
was no demolition order. The appeal against the order /
letter dated 06.02.2018 has been filed to which notice was
issued. The demolition order has been passed on
16.02.2018. Despite knowledge of the said order, the
demolition order is not yet challenged and there is question
of maintainability of the present appeal against the letter
dated 06.02.2018 after passing of the demolition order.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appeal against
the letter dated 06.02.2018 is still maintainable despite
passing of the demolition order and seeks adjournment to
satisfy this Tribunal in this regard.
Put up for arguments on the maintainability of the
present appeal on 19.02.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 252/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. S.D. Ansari, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Sanjay Gupta counsel for applicant.
Sh. Abdul Haq, JLO from MCD.
Dy. Commissioner was directed to appear in person
on previous date. No one is appeared despite service.
JLO pointed out that service of this appeal has not
been issued.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued 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.
AE(B) concerned to remain present on date fixed.
Put up this matter for producing the record and
appearance of the AE(B) concerned and for filing reply of
the application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC and arguments
on 10.07.2019. Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date
Copy of the application under order 1 Rule 10
supplied.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 280/18 04.12.2018
Present : None for the appellant.
Sh. Jatin Aggarwal, counsel for respondent.
Appellant is not appearing for the last two dates after
filing of the application for withdrawal of the appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in default as well
as for non prosecution.
Demolition order dated 07.02.2018 is accordingly
confirmed.
Respondent is at liberty to take action as per law in
respect of the property of the appellant.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Record of the respondent, if any be returned to the
respondent.
Respondent is directed to file action taken report on
09.07.2019. Registrar is directed to prepare a
miscellaneous file for this purpose. Copy of this order be
placed in miscellaneous file.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 849/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Vikas Sharma, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Vijay Tyagi, counsel for respondent.
Original record and status report already filed.
As per the status report the property was booked on
17.03.2018 for unauthorized construction in the shape of rooms,
kitchen etc. at ground floor, first floor, and second floor without
obtaining the Sanctioned Building Plan. Show cause notice was
issued on 17.03.2018 served by speed post. Demolition order
was passed on 02.04.2018 on the ground that construction was
raised without prior approval of the competent authority.
As per record demolition action has been taken on the
second floor on 21.04.2018 wherein T-iron stone slab has been
demolished and front side brick work, window also demolished.
Complete action could not be taken due to shortage of time.
Further demolition action took place on 03.05.2018 and
also on 24.11.2018 when one panel and stone roof of the second
floor was demolished.
Sealing order u/s 345A of the DMC Act has already been
passed on 22.06.2018 but due to shortage of time sealing action
could not be taken.
The property is situated in Vishwas Nagar, Delhi which is
stated to be unauthorized regularized colony.
Ld. counsel for respondent at the very outset took an
objection on the maintainability of the appeal saying that it is
barred by limitation.
It is pointed out that as per record the first demolition
action took place on 21.04.2018 and the knowledge has to be
impugned to the appellant from the said date but the appeal has
been filed on 20.11.2018.
I have gone through the application seeking condonation
of delay.
The appellant has sought condonation of delay on the
ground that appellant received the show cause notice only on
16.11.2018. No copy of the demolition order has ever been
A.No. 849/18
supplied to the appellant. The respondent official allowed the
appellant to take the photograph of the demolition order only on
16.11.2018 and as such there is no delay in filing the present
appeal.
Ld. counsel has pointed out that the track report of service
by speed post is not placed on record by the respondent.
Ld. counsel for respondent seeks adjournment to place on
record the track record of service.
Put up for filing the track record and final arguments on
09.05.2019.
In view of the facts and circumstances, respondent is
restrained from taking any coercive action in the property of the
appellant bearing no. 618 (part), Main Pandav Road, Ravi Dass
Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 in pursuance of
demolition order dated 02.04.2018 till next date of hearing.
However, this order is subject to any order passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court / Hon’ble High Court / Hon’ble NGT about
sealing and demolition in respect of the property in question.
Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details of
construction with measurements of the existing construction
alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property in
question within five 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.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to counsel for appellant,
as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 913/17 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Dinesh Tiwari, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Renu Soni, Nodal Officer for SDMC
alongwith Sh. B.S. Gupta, AE(B).
Sh. Khalid Salil, counsel for applicant.
Notice of the application u/s 151 for permission to
construct toilet and bathroom has been served upon the
respondent. Reply not filed.
Another application was moved under Order 1 Rule
10 CPC was moved. Reply not filed by the respondent as
well as by the appellant.
Application perused.
It is stated that he has filed Writ Petition
No.5570/2016 in the High Court titled as Narender Kumar
vs SDMC. He has also filed a contempt petition No.137/17
for non compliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court by
the respondent.
It is further stated that vide order dated 12.12.2017,
Hon’ble High Court granted liberty to the present applicant
to approach this Tribunal and to place before it relevant
record/documents.
It is therefore, stated that applicant is a necessary
party.
I perused the order dated 12.12.2017 of the High
Court in contempt petition CAS(C( 137/2017 wherein liberty
has been granted to the applicant on the submissions of his
counsel to place the relevant record/documents before
ATMCD.
Arguments on maintainability of the application under
order 1 Rule 10 CPC heard. Even if it is presumed that all
the averments made in the application is correct, then also
in this proceeding between the appellant and the MCD the
applicant has no right to participate and he can not become
a party as there is a clear-cut judgment of Delhi High Court
in case Hardayal Singh Mehta Vs MCD, AIR 1990 Delhi
A.No. 913/17
170 in which it is held that in the matter between the
appellant and the MCD, no third person can join and
become a party to such proceedings and in such
proceedings the application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC is
not maintainable. Any dispute between the applicant and
the appellant has to be dealt with and to be decided by the
Civil Court separately. Accordingly, application moved by
applicant under order 1 Rule 10 CPC is hereby dismissed.
However, the applicant is permitted to file the documents, if
any and to orally argue the matter at the final arguments
stage.
I have heard the ld. counsel for appellant on the
order u/s 151 CPC wherein it is prayed that appellant is
residing in the property wherein respondent has demolished
the toilet and bathroom of the premises before filing of the
present appeal.
It is further stated that toilet and bathroom is very
necessary requirement for the appellant and his family
members.
Nodal Officer pointed out that as per record part
demolition action took place on 24.03.2017 as well as on
22.05.2017 and 20.09.2017.
On 20.09.2017 demolition action took place wherein
with the help of PS: Palam Village demolished one room,
toilet, bathroom etc at ground floor. It is these bathroom
and toilet which appellant wants to reconstruct again.
Unless and until the appeal is decided the claim of
the appellant to reconstruct and use the toilet and bathroom
cannot be considered. The application is accordingly
dismissed.
Put up for final arguments on 22.07.2019. Interim
stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 793/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Vikas Kumar, counsel for appellant.
None for the respondent.
Status report not filed. Record also not produced.
Dy. Commissioner concerned is directed to appear in
person alongwith record and status report.
Put up on 17.07.2019. Interim stay, if any, is
extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 701/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for
MCD/applicant alongwith Sh. N.R. Meena, AE(B).
File taken up today as an application is moved by the
respondent with the title for intimation regarding orders
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi pertaining to flat
No.9722, C-9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi with the prayer to
allow the SDMC to take the demolition action in the suit
property as department has fixed program for 04.12.2018
for taking demolition/sealing action against the unauthorized
construction at the suit flat.
It is stated in the application that this Tribunal has
passed the order dated 28.09.2018 on the appeal of the flat
owner directing the respondent to maintain status quo in
respect of the property of the appellant bearing No.9722, C-
9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi till next date of hearing i.e.
10.12.2018.
It is further stated that the Hon’ble High Court in Writ
Petition Civil No.3819/17 titled as Masooda Mir and Anr vs
SDMC vide order dated 18.09.2018 has directed the SDMC
to file a status / action taken report within the period of two
weeks. The matter is listed before the High Court on
06.12.2018.
I have heard ld. counsel for respondent
MCD/applicant and AE(B) and carefully examined the
record as well as order dated 28.09.2018.
The present appeal was filed on 25.09.2018 against
the demolition order dated 02.06.2016 alongwith application
seeking condonation of delay.
Notice of the said application and the appeal was
issued to the respondent for 27.09.2018.
On 27.09.2018, respondent’s AE(B) Sh. N.R. Meena
appeared but did not file the status report, however, original
record was produced. The matter was adjourned on
28.09.2018 for filing the status report and arguments on the
interim stay application.
A.No. 701/18 -2-
On 28.09.2018, status report was filed but reply to
the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was not filed.
The matter was listed at 2.00 p.m. for filing reply to
the said application.
At 2.00 p.m. reply to the application u/s 5 of the
Limitation Act was filed.
The matter could not be heard at length with regard
to stay application as well as application seeking
condonation of delay because the undersigned had to go to
attend the crimination of Sh. Anand Swaroop Aggarwal,
sitting DJS Officer who expired on the said date.
Accordingly the matter was adjourned for arguments on the
application seeking condonation of delay as well as stay
application on 16.10.2018. The respondent was directed to
maintain status quo. The said order is reproduced as
under:-
“In the meantime respondent is directed to
maintain status quo in respect of the property of the
appellant bearing flat No.9722, C-9, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi till next date of hearing.
However, this order is subject to any order
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court / Hon’ble
High Court / Hon’ble NGT about sealing and
demolition in respect of the property in question.”
Thus it is evident from the order dated 28.08.2018
that status quo order passed by this Tribunal on 28.09.2018
is subject to any order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court / Hon’ble High Court / Hon’ble NGT with regard to the
sealing and demolition of the property in question.
In the application presented today the respondent
has made a prayer to allow the SDMC to take the demolition
action in the suit property.
A.No. 701/18 -3-
Since the status quo order was already made subject
to any direction / order passed by the Hon’ble High Court,
where was the occasion and need of filing present
application? Moreover, there is no explanation as to why
this application has been moved just two days before the
filing of the action taken report before the Hon’ble High
Court on 06.12.2018 despite the fact that the directions of
the Hon’ble High Court is within the knowledge of the
respondent on 28.09.2018 when the status quo order was
passed by this Tribunal.
In the circumstances mentioned in the order itself,
moving of this application with the prayer stated above is
abuse of process of law and wastage of time of this
Tribunal.
It seems that the respondent has deliberately moved
the application just two days prior to the date of hearing
before the Hon’ble High Court notwithstanding the fact that
there was no restriction upon the respondent / its officer to
execute the order of the Hon’ble High Court with regard to
sealing/demolition of the property subject matter of the
present appeal. The application being frivolous is dismissed
subject to cost of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the
respondent by next date of hearing.
Put up on date already fixed i.e. 10.12.2018. Copy of
order be given dasti, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 875/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal instituted u/s 343 (2) of the DMC
demolition order dated 26.11.2018 wherein the property has
been booked in continuation of the previous booking for
unauthorized construction in the shape of addition/alteration
at, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor.
I have heard the ld. counsel with regard to interim
stay application, who submits that photographs placed on
record shows that building is old and the appellant was just
putting up the tiles / chipping of plaster and fixing tiles.
The appellant has filed photocopy of the chain
documents. The appellant has purchased the property vide
two registered separate sale deed on 10.02.2018 wherein
ground floor is purchased separately and entire first floor,
second floor and third floor were purchased separately.
In the said sale deed lower ground floor and ground
floor is mentioned. Vendor has stated to have purchased
the entire ground floor without roof/terrace rights vide
registered sale deed on 13.12.1996. In the sale deed dated
10.04.2018 regarding first floor to third floor the vendor has
stated that he is absolute rightful owner in respect of entire
first floor, second floor and third floor.
The appellant has filed assessment order dated
18.01.2018 to show to show that a notice u/s 123D of the
DMC Act was issued on 15.06.2017 on account of non –
filing of PTRs from 2004-05 to 2016-17. The annual value
has been determined to Rs.90,180/- w.e.f 01.04.2004. No
dues certificate dated 21.02.2018 is also placed on record
and one time conversion charges Rs.6,20,789/- has been
deposited on 26.10.2018 under self assessment scheme.
Ld. counsel has therefore, prayed that property
needs to be protected as there is no unauthorized
construction / alleged addition, alteration. It is further stated
that appellant is not aware of any previous booking of the
property in question.
A.No. 875/18
In these circumstances, it is as fit case for grant of
ex-parte interim stay. Accordingly, respondent is restrained
from taking any coercive action in the property of the
appellant bearing no. 11650, Gali No.1, Sat Nagar, Karol
Bagh, New Delhi in pursuance of demolition order dated
26.11.2018 till next date of hearing.
However, this order is subject to any order passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court / Hon’ble High Court / Hon’ble
NGT about sealing and demolition in respect of the property
in question.
Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details of
construction with measurements of the existing construction
alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property
in question within five 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.
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 22.02.2018.
Record pertaining to the previous booking be also
produced alongwith original record. AE(B) concerned to
remain present on date fixed. Copy of order be given dasti,
as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 862/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Deepak Thakur, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against demolition order dated
22.06.2018. Application for condonation of delay has also
been filed.
Issue notice of the appeal and application for
condonation of delay 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 12.12.2018. Notice be given
Dasti, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 861/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Deepak Thakur, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against demolition order dated
22.06.2018. Application for condonation of delay has also
been filed.
Issue notice of the appeal and application for
condonation of delay 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 12.12.2018. Notice be given
Dasti, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 860/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Deepak Thakur, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against demolition order dated
22.06.2018. Application for condonation of delay has also
been filed.
Issue notice of the appeal and application for
condonation of delay 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 12.12.2018. Notice be given
Dasti, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 863/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Ishant, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against sealing of the premises on
06.08.2018. Sealing order not filed on the ground that same
is not supplied despite moving an application. Copy of the
application placed at page No.10B.
No application seeking condonation of delay has
been filed.
On filing the said application, 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.
The respondent shall also clarify whether the
property in question is a part of properties i.e. 21960
Industrial Units having been closed in compliance of the
order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 31.10.2018.
Put up this matter on 22.02.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 390/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. S. Pathak, counsel for appellant.
File taken up today as an application u/s 151 has
been moved for stay of the demolition order dated
14.05.2018. with the prayer to restrain the respondent to
carry out further demolition action.
The matter is listed on 15.01.2019. There is no
request for preponement of the matter. Moreover, in the
order dated 31.07.2018, it is mentioned that appellant
sought adjournment for final arguments and did not press
the interim stay application and the matter is adjourned to
30.10.2018.
No status report was filed and the Dy. Commissioner
concerned was directed to appear in person to file status
report under his/her signature.
In the meantime an application under order 1 Rule 10
CPC was also filed by one intervener.
In view of these facts, as there is no application for
preponement and without hearing the respondent in this
matter, the prayer in the application cannot be considered.
Let notice of this application be issued to the
respondent for date fixed i.e. 15.01.2019.
Notice be issued Dasti.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. A.No. 153/18 Statement of Sh. Ravinder Singh, AE(B), South Zone, SDMC
ON SA
The show cause notice dated 13.12.2017 as well as demolition
order dated 26.12.2017 in respect of the appeal property bearing Farm
No.5, village Mandi opposite JRD Janak Verma’s Darpan, Bhati, New
Delhi was issued by me and the same bears my signature at point ‘A’ and
‘B’ respectively.
The service of the show cause notice dated 13.12.2017 was
affected by way of pasting on 18.12.2017. The photograph of the pasting
placed at page 3A/C is a department record which might have been
placed on record after 21.05.2018 but not by me. The photograph 3A/C
was with the Office Incharge, Building South Zone Sh. Rajiv. It might
have been placed on record either by the said Rajiv or JE(B) Arun Rawat.
The status report dated 26.03.2018 filed on 22.05.2018 has been
prepared by me and the same bears my signature at point ‘C’. The said
status report also bears the signature of the then JE(B) which is at point
‘D’. The local inquiry so made by me and the then JE(B) was made from
the residents of the nearby vicinity including chowkidar of the adjacent
house, however, I do not remember their name and parentage.
The above statement is true and correct as per my knowledge as
well as on the basis of the available record.
RO&AC
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
A.No. 616/17 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Rakesh Walia, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Original record produced.
No status report filed.
Adjournment sought to withdraw the appeal by the
appellant or final arguments.
Put up this matter for that purpose and final
arguments on 09.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 732/16 & 1215/15 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Manjusha Jha / Sh. Nitesh Sharma,
counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Ajay Chandra
Upredi, JE(B).
Ld. counsel for appellant submitted that in appeal no.
732/16, the appellant needs to seek two weeks time to file
fresh application seeking regularization of transmission pole
and in appeal no. 1215/15, they have already applied vide
application dated 11.08.2018.
Fresh application be filed by the appellant within two
weeks, failing which they will be burdened with the costs of
Rs. 20,000/-
Status report be filed by the respondent with regard
to the application in appeal no. 1215/15.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent and arguments on 03.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 153/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Sanjay Agnihotri, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. Ravinder Singh, AE(B) and Ms.
Renu Soni, Nodal Officer for SDMC.
Statement of Sh. Ravinder Singh, AE(B) regarding
the photographs of pasting placed at page no. 3A/C and
status report dated 26.03.2018 has been recorded.
Ld. counsel for respondent seeks adjournment to
produce Office Incharge Sh. Rajiv and JE(B) Sh. Arun
Rawat for their statement.
Put up this matter for that purpose and further
proceedings on 10.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 1014/13, 1015/13, 1016/13 & 473/13 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant in all
appeals except appeal no. 473/13.
None for appellant in appeal no. 473/13.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta / Sh. V.K. Aggarwal,
counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. P.K. Chauhan,
AE(B) and Sh. Nitesh Kumar, JE(B).
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for DDA alongwith
Ms. Anju Sharma, JLO from DDA and Sh.
Vijender Singh, AE(RPD-7), DDA.
Sh. Himanshu Harbola, counsel for Monitoring
Committee.
On 13.08.2018, MCD and DDA both were asked to
clarify whether they intend to take any action as no status
quo order has been passed by the Hon’ble High Court
because it was revealed that owners of 14 properties were
obtained order from Hon’ble High Court and accordingly on
23.01.2018, the respondent were directed to file the status
report regarding remaining properties which was either not
sealed or there was no stay from the Hon’ble High Court.
In that regard in para no. 5 of status report filed by
the MCD today, it is stated that the MCD has received two
subsequent references from Monitoring Committee and as
well as STF for carrying out resealing action in respect of
the remaining properties.
It is further stated that a reference bearing no. I-1632
dated 31.05.2018 regarding resealing of the remaining
premises have been forwarded to DDA for fixing a program
and North DMC shall extend necessary assistance as
required.
The sealing program of DDA is still awaited in
accordance of reference of Monitoring Committee.
In the end of status report, it is stated that there is no
role of North DMC in fixing resealing of the remaining
properties in question which fall under the jurisdiction of
DDA.
A.No. 1014/13, 1015/13, 1016/13 & 473/13
Concerned Dy. Commissioner is directed to appear
in person.
Sh. Vijender Singh, AE(RPD-7), DDA is present and
file status report in compliance of order dated 13.08.2018.
It is stated that on the directions of DLM-1/DDA a
joint program of North DMC, DDA, Delhi Police was
organized to seal the commercial properties of Sanjay
Nagar Market, Mangolpur Kalan, on 05.05.2018. The action
could not be taken due to gathering of crowd.
The matter of Sanjay Nagar Market sealing was
taken up in the fourteenth meeting of STF chaired by
VC/DDA on 02.11.2018 and it was decided that the issue of
sealing of unauthorized structures on Sanjay Nagar Market
raised by Monitoring Committee in its 127th Report
submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court was discussed and
it was decided that a joint operation of North DMC, DDA and
Delhi Police, after the festival season of Deepawali will be
taken for sealing of those properties and it is further stated
that the sealing programme shall be executed as soon as
the confirmation of availability of police force.
Sh. Vijender Singh, AE submits that tentatively
program is fixed for 18.12.2018.
Put up this matter for filing action taken report and
further proceedings on 08.02.2019.
Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for
compliance.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 139/12 & 555/12 04.12.2018
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, Kanungo from DDA.
Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta, Naib Tehsildar
from DDA.
Part arguments heard.
Put up this matter for remaining arguments on
05.12.2018 at 2.00 pm.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 136/15, 173/16 & 163/17 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. K.B. Gupta, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Sh. Anupam Sharma, counsel for DDA
alongwith Ms. Anju Sharma, Nodal Officer
from DDA in appeal no. 163/17.
Part arguments heard.
Respondent MCD and DDA have not filed written
brief submissions.
Both are directed to file the same within three days.
Put up this matter for remaining arguments on
11.12.2018 at 2.00 pm.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 952/13 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. K.B. Gupta, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Ms. Manorama Masih, counsel for Monitoring
Committee.
Status report filed stating that there exist four number
of dwelling units and this property and there exist three
number of shops at this property.
Part arguments heard.
Put up this matter for remaining arguments on
15.01.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 176/15 & 149/15 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Atul Pandey, proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer for North DMC.
Adjournment sought as main counsel for appellant is
not available.
Put up this matter for final arguments on 16.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 501/13, 903/13 & 906/13 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Sumit Rana, counsel for appellant in
appeal no. 501/13.
Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant in
appeal no. 903/13 & 904/13.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
None for Monitoring Committee.
Status report in compliance of order dated
06.02.2018 not filed.
Adjournment sought to file the status report clarifying
whether the conversion charges mentioned in the status
report filed on 06.02.2018 has been paid or not. Advance
copy be supplied to counsel for appellant.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent and arguments on 18.04.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
Misc No. 318/18 04.12.2018
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, proxy counsel for MCD.
Status report in compliance of order dated
21.08.2018 has not been filed.
Ld. counsel for respondent seeks adjournment to file
the status report stating that on previous date he was not
present and could not intimate the department of producing
the status report.
Put up this matter for compliance report of order
dated 21.08.2018 under the hand and signature of Dy.
Commissioner concerned on 15.02.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 367/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ranjit Pandey, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. N.K. Meena, ALO.
Costs of Rs. 5,000/- was not deposited by the
respondent.
Copy of status report filed on previous date supplied
to counsel for appellant.
Ld. counsel for appellant seeks adjournment to file
objections to the status report if any.
Put up this matter for deposit of costs / consideration
of status report and arguments on 13.03.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 369/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Varun Dhingra, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Abdul Haq, JLO.
Owner has been impleaded as respondent no. 3 has
been served through his brother namely Dharamveer on
28.11.2018.
No one is present on behalf of owner.
No documents of ownership are placed on record by
the appellant who is claiming himself to be the owner.
Adjournment sought to address arguments on
maintainability.
Put up this matter for further proceedings and
arguments on 15.01.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 1201/15 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. S.S. Handa, counsel for appellant.
None for respondent.
Appellant has expired on 25.09.2018. Death
certificate of appellant filed by Legal representative of the
appellant.
Let the notice of the application be served / issued to
both the respondent.
Appellant is directed to clarify the details of Legal
Heirs / Legal Representatives of the deceased appellant
because the application is moved by Sh. Prem Chawla, son
of deceased appellant, claiming himself to be the only Legal
Representative on the basis of Will.
Put up this matter for reply / arguments on the
application on 30.01.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 723/17 & 724/17 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Fauzan Abbasi, proxy counsel for
appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Adjournment sought as main counsel for appellant is
not available.
Put up this matter for final arguments on
maintainability of appeal on 23.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 602/14 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Anmol Singh, proxy counsel for appellant
alongwith appellant.
Sh. Anupam Sharma, counsel for DDA
alongwith Ms. Anju Sharma, JLO from DDA.
Sh. Satya Pal Singh Bhola and Sh. Surinder
Pal Singh Bhola in person.
Both the appellants are present today.
Ld. counsel for appellant has filed written
submissions. Copy supplied.
Put up this matter for filing written submissions by the
respondent / hearing of oral arguments on 11.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 317/18 04.12.2018
Present : None for appellant.
Ms. Meenu, proxy counsel for Ms. Nazma
Akhtar, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Abdul
Haq, JLO.
Status report filed stating that sealing order was
executed on 20.11.2018 by sealing at two points at ground
floor. Demolition order was passed on 04.05.2018.
Demolition action was taken on 18.06.2018 and roof slab of
second floor was demolished.
Since no one has appeared on behalf of the
appellant, the appeal is dismissed in default and for non-
prosecution.
Respondent is at liberty to take action as per law in
pursuance of impugned order challenged herein. For that
purpose, the property be desealed as per the convenience
of officers of MCD.
File be consigned to record room.
Respondent is directed to file action taken report /
status report on 02.07.2019. Registrar is directed to
prepare a miscellaneous file for this purpose.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 978/17 04.12.2018
Present : Appellant in person.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Status report in compliance of order dated
14.08.2018 filed informing about the penalty / misuse
charges amounting to Rs. 69,489/- which has been
deposited by the appellant vide G-8 receipt dated
14.03.2018.
Adjournment sought to file the documents of
ownership.
Arguments heard.
Ownership documents be filed by the appellant within
a week.
Put up this matter for clarification, if any / orders on
19.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 835/16 & 930/16 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Deepanshu Choithani, counsel for
appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Sh. Vijay Rajora, counsel for DDA alongwith
Ms. Anju Sharma, JLO from DDA.
Reply to the objections filed by the appellant on the
status report filed by Town Planning Department, EDMC.
Copy supplied.
Put up this matter for arguments on 24.05.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 143/17 & 98/17 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. G.R. Verma, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Praveen Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Ld. counsel for respondent stated that affidavit was
received recently and send to the Zone and seeks
adjournment to file the status report.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent and arguments on 08.03.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 837/18 04.12.2018
Present : Sh. Manak Bhudhiraja, counsel for appellant
alongwith appellant.
Affidavit filed stating that the appellant has placed the
order dated 19.11.2018 before Dy. Commissioner, Keshav
Puram Zone with the application dated 20.11.2018 which
was received in the Office of Dy. Commissioner on
20.11.2018 but the copy of sealing order was not supplied.
Notice be issued to the Dy. Commissioner concerned
to appear in person for explanation as to why he has not
complied the order dated 19.11.2018. Copy of affidavit of
the appellant be sent to Dy. Commissioner alongwith notice
for 10.01.2019.
Notice be sent through Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer
for North DMC personally.
Copy of order as well as notice be given Dasti for
compliance.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018
A.No. 641/17, 642/17, 643/17, 786/17, 787/17, 788/17, 789/17 & 790/17 04.12.2018
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta / Sh. Adil Husain, proxy
counsel for Sh. Umesh Gupta, counsel for
MCD.
None has appeared on behalf of the appellant
despite repeated calls.
No one is appearing on behalf of the appellant for the
last two dates.
The appeal is dismissed in default and for non-
prosecution.
Respondent is at liberty to take action as per law in
pursuance of impugned order challenged herein.
File be consigned to record room.
Respondent is directed to file action taken report /
status report on 04.07.2019. Registrar is directed to
prepare a miscellaneous file for this purpose.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 04.12.2018