A.No. (SANJEEV KUMAR)mcdonline.gov.in/at/dailyordersnew/220_06.12.2017.pdf · 12.12.2017 at 2.00 PM and after inspection reseal the same on the same day. Copy of calculation be also

A.No. 06.12.2017

Present :

(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.

Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017

A.No. 923/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Manoj Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Kartik Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh. Vikas

Gupta, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Sanjay

Gupta, ALO.

Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.

Ld. counsel for respondent seeks time to file the

record on the ground that intimation has been reached in

the zone only 3-4 days ago.

In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is

granted for filing the reply and record by the respondent by

next date of hearing.

In the meanwhile, respondent is also directed to file

the status report whether appellant is liable to pay any

misuse charges or not. For this purpose respondent is

given liberty to deseal the property for the purpose of

measurement of the area to calculate the charges on

12.12.2017 at 2.00 PM and after inspection reseal the same

on the same day.

Copy of calculation be also supplied to appellant at

least two weeks prior to the date fixed and the appellant is

at liberty to deposit the charges or file objections to the

status report, if any.

Put up this matter for filing of status report by the

respondent on 30.01.2018.

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

as prayed.



A.No. 910/17 06.12.2017

Present : None for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD

alongwith Ms. Sarita Gaur, ALO for

respondent MCD.

Mohd. Kesar, Legal Officer for Delhi Waqf

Board, Respondent no. 3.

None for respondent no. 4.

Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that record has

been brought and the same will be filed today itself.

Put up this matter for filing of reply by the respondent

and arguments on 15.12.2017.



A.No. 163/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. K.B. Gupta, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for North DMC

alongwith Sh. R.K. Sharma, AE(B)HQ, North

DMC.

Sh. Bharat Bhusan, Chief Town Planner and

Sh. Vikas Gupta, AE(B), SE(B)HQ, SDMC.

Sh. Anupam Sharma, counsel for DDA

alongwith Ms. Neeru Sharma, Nodal Officer

for DDA.

On the previous date, status report was filed by the

SDMC. As per the status report, the plan for sanction of

building plan of M/s Leandra Builders Developers Pvt. Ltd.

were sanctioned on 12.06.2009 for construction of lower

and upper basement and ground floor for industrial use,

thereafter, further revised plan was submitted by the said

firm which was sanctioned on 18.09.2009 qua the property

bearing no. 79/80, Okhla, Industrial area, Phase-I, Delhi

thereafter, ownership of the said property was changed and

the new applicant M/s DLF again submitted the revised

proposal for commercial use of the said industrial plot vide

file dated 25.10.2010.

During the processing of said case a notification

dated 01.04.2011 relating to regulations and guidelines for

redevelopment of existing industrial area was issue by the

DDA.

The applicant / M/s DLF filed representation dated

28.04.2011 claimed that applicant is entitled to avail benefit

of construction of flatted factory in pursuance of the clause

no. 2(2.1-2.11) of the said notification i.e. (in proof they

claimed 1.5 times of existing permissible FAR)

The Town Planning Department SDMC referred the

matter to the DDA on the point that “in the light of decisions

A.No. 163/17

of DDA Technical Committee dated 17.03.2010, whether

building plan proposed in the present case on individual plot

can be sanctioned for commercial occupancy of local

shopping centre”.

The minutes of third Technical Committee held on

29.06.2012 clarified vide letter no. F.1(09)2012/MP/175

dated 10.07.2012 were conveyed to Chief Town Planner.

The decision taken by the Technical Committee of the DDA

is reproduced below:-

“Item no. 25/2012 Sanction of building plans with permitted commercial activities in industrial plots. F.3(33)2008/MP/Petitioner. The proposal was explained by Chief Town Planner, MCD. The Technical Committee agreed to the proposal as per the permissibility of Commercial activity in Industrial Plots given in MPD-2021 as well as in the Regulations notified on 01.04.2011. The remaining issues pertaining to building bye Laws to be examined by the concerned Local Body based on use occupancy.”

After obtaining clarification from Technical Committee

of DDA, building plan was sanctioned with FAR = 224.965

against permissible FAR 225, whereas in the case in hand

DDA has given the opinion that incentive 1.5 times of

permissible FAR of industrial plots (as part of

redevelopment) is not permissible for commercial activities

on an industrial plot.

In the status report filed by the DDA on 24.12.2017

also taken him for stand, it is stated in paragraph 7 of the

report that permissible use of activities on industrial plot as

mentioned in the footnote VIII of Table 7.3 is governed by

the provisions of Table 7.1 r/w Table 7.3 of MPD-2021.

Paragraph 8 of report, it is stated that in Table 7.1 of

MPD-2021, there is no mention of any commercial activities

permitted in industrial use zone / area.

A.No. 163/17 The relevant para of status report in para 15 in which

it is stated that the DDA has never submitted that incentive

of 1.5 times of permissible FAR would be allowed on

Industrial Plots for commercial activities.

Thus from the status report filed by the DDA, it is

evident that same is contrary to the earlier opinion given to

the SDMC on the basis of minutes of the third Technical

Committee held on 26.06.2012.

Sh. Bharat Bhusan, Chief Town Planner is present

and submits that Town Planning Department has still of the

view the sanction granted to the DLF was appropriate and

was granted according to law.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that as per the

clause 3 sub-clause 13 regulations of 17 of MPD-2021 the

opinion of the Technical Committee is only a competent

authority to frame the policy.

Hence, in my view, DDA need to clarify the position

which opinion is correct, the opinion which was given in DLF

case or in present case by Planning Department and

whether opinion of the Technical Committee will prevail or

the opinion of Planning Department which has been filed by

the DDA in the present case will prevail.

Status report will be filed after due approval from the

Vice-Chairman of the DDA.

Ld. counsel for appellant is directed to supply

complete set of documents / appeal filed before this

Tribunal to the counsel for DDA as requested by the

counsel for DDA.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, SDMC

is discharge from the case.


respondent and arguments on 01.02.2018.

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

prayed.



A.No. 136/15 & 173/16 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. K.B. Gupta, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for North DMC

alongwith Sh. R.K. Sharma, AE(B)HQ, North

DMC.

Sh. Bharat Bhusan, Chief Town Planner and

Sh. Vikas Gupta, AE(B), SE(B)HQ, SDMC.

Put up this matter with connected appeal no. 163/17

on 01.02.2018.



M.No. 72/13 06.12.2017

Present : None for applicant.

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

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that further

demolition action could not be taken in the property in

question due to change of AE(B).


granted for taking action, failing which concerned Dy.

Commissioner will appear in person.

Put up this matter on 22.03.2018.



A.No. 697/16 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Vikram Verma, counsel for appellant.


Main file has been sent to the Ld. District Judge

(East) in appeal no. 6/16.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that now the appeal

is fixed for 15.12.2017.

In these circumstances, case is adjourned to

29.03.2018.



A.No. 474/17 06.12.2017

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

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. D.P. Sharma, AE(B) and Sh.

S.K. Bhati, AZI, House Tax Department.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that house tax

record has been brought and same be filed with the

registrar.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that another appeal

against the demolition order qua the same property is listed

for 18.12.2017.

Let this appeal be also listed for the same day i.e. on

18.12.2017.



A.No. 935/17 06.12.2017

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

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. D.P. Sharma, AE(B).

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks permission to

withdraw the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been

wrongly filed challenging the sealing order, though another

appeal bearing no. 474/17 challenging the same order is

pending before this Tribunal.

In view of the submission, appeal is dismissed as

withdrawn. File be consigned to record room.



A.No. 957/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant.

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

Nagina Jain, counsel for MCD.

Status report filed by the respondent. Copy supplied.

As per the status report regularization application of the

appellant was rejected vide office letter dated 08.08.2017 on

the ground that there is no policy for floor-wise

regularization.

Final arguments heard.

Put up this matter for clarification, if any / orders on

12.12.2017.



A.No. 698/16 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Vikram Verma, counsel for appellant.


Put up this matter with connected appeal no. 697/16

on 29.03.2018.



M.No. 64/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Rahul Shukla, counsel for appellant.

An application for 151 CPC for recalling of order

dated 23.08.2017 is pending for disposal.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that on 23.08.2017,

he could not appear as counsel for appellant was occupied

in the Hon’ble High Court.

However, in my view, this is no ground for setting

aside the order because it is on the advocate to manage his

own diary and if on such grounds orders are setting aside

this will create havoc on the trial courts as every lawyer can

take the same plea.

In the interest of justice, I allow the application

subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the

registry of this Tribunal. File be consigned to record room.

Ahlmad is directed to re-register the misc. application

no. 64/17 to its original number.

Issue notice of the said application to the respondent

for 23.03.2018.



A.No. 104/16 06.12.2017

Present : Ms. Nidhi T. Raj, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Sarita Gaur, ALO for respondent MCD

and Sh. Sandeep Manglik, Nodal Officer for

North DMC.

Ld. counsel for appellant has filed photocopy of

electricity bill and ration card. She submits that appellant is

not the owner of property, but tenant in the property in

question since 1935.


As per the status report the road on which property no. 776,

Gali Teliyan, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 is

situated, is declared Pedestrian Street where commercial

activities are allowed.

Part arguments heard.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant has

not carried out any unauthorized construction in the property

in question i.e. one shop at ground floor and only was doing

the white wash etc which was permissible as per Section

6.4.1 of DMC Act.

Let respondent to file status report whether detail of

construction as mentioned by the appellant in the affidavit

dated 22.09.2016 is correct or not. Further, respondent is

also directed to specify what are the addition / alteration in

the property in question which was booked by the

respondent.



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



A.No. 642/10 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Mohan K. Kukreja, counsel for appellant.



As per the status report no affidavit was filed by the

appellant. Further, in the report, it is mentioned that site

was inspected and compared with regularization plan dated

30.05.2017 and there was found some deviations at each

floor, which is compoundable in nature and can be

considered for regularization of filing of joint or collective

proposal.

Final arguments heard.

Put up this matter for clarification, if any / orders on

18.01.2018.

At the request of Ld. counsel for appellant, he is

given liberty to file written submissions, if any, within four

weeks.



A.No. 643/10 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Mohan K. Kukreja, counsel for appellant.



However, in the status report nothing is mentioned about

the action taken for unauthorized construction on terrace of

second floor which was also booked vide FIR dated

26.10.2010 about which demolition order was passed on

03.11.2010.

Ld. counsel for appellant has filed copy of receipt

showing that affidavit, site plan and photographs were

supplied in the office of respondent.

Respondent AE(B) shall verify the details of

construction mentioned in the affidavit and file status report

whether the same is correct or not by next date of hearing.

In the meanwhile, respondent is given last and final

opportunity to also file status report about the action taken

on the terrace of second floor.





M.No. 36/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Navjot Kwatra, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Mohit Sharma, counsel for MCD.

File taken up on an application for restoration of

appeal which was dismissed on 08.05.2017.

Arguments heard.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that on 08.05.2017,

counsel was present till 01.00 PM but matter was not called

and thereafter, he left the court asking other counsel to

appear, but he did not appear after 02.00 PM and the matter

was dismissed in default.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that the order

reflect that nobody appeared in the morning nor in the

afternoon, hence, the averments are false.

I have considered the submissions.

Though the ground taken by the appellant in the

application does not appear much convincing, however, in

the interest of justice, I allow the application subject to costs

of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the registry of this

Tribunal.

Ahlmad is directed to restore the appeal to its original

number.

At the request of ld. counsel for appellant, Put up this

matter for final arguments on 05.01.2018.



A.No. 404/13 & 405/13 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Hitender Nahata, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Sarita, proxy counsel for Sh. Umesh

Gupta, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.

Sumant Singh, AE(B).

Ld. counsel for respondent has filed status report

alongwith copy of the order dated 19.07.2013. He submits

that the record file of the order dated 19.07.2013 will be filed

today itself as photocopy is to be done.

AE(B) has also filed the sealing record of the

property in question. Let same be filed with the registrar.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that he need time

to inspect the record.

In these circumstances, case is adjourned for final

arguments on 22.03.2018.



A.No. 738/17 & 496/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Hariom Gupta, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Sarita Gaur, ALO for North DMC MCD

alongwith Sh. Hanuman, AE(B).

Ld. counsel for appellant has file Memo of

appearance and seeks time to file vakalatnama on the

ground that he has informed telephonically to appear in this

case.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that property

could not be inspected as whenever the AE(B) has visited

he found the property locked.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that some date be

fixed when the inspection be carried out by the AE(B) and

on that day appellant will be present at the site.

Let respondent is given liberty to deseal the property

for the purpose of inspection on 11.12.2017 at 2.00 PM and

after inspection reseal the same on the same day.




as prayed.



A.No. 383/15 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Vijender Bhardwaj, counsel for appellant.

Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD

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

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that status report

could not be filed as affidavit filed by the appellant could not

be traced.

Another copy of the affidavit alongwith site plan and

photographs supplied to the AE(B).

Let respondent AE(B) shall verify the details of

construction mentioned in the affidavit and file status report

whether the same is correct or not by next date of hearing.






A.No. 834/16 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Amar Bakshi, proxy counsel for appellant.

Ms. Praveen Sharma, counsel for SDMC.

Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that main

counsel is not available as he is not well and seeks

adjournment.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that appellant

has not supplied copy of affidavit of the second floor as

directed by this Tribunal, though it is reflected in the order

dated 30.05.2017 that same has been filed.

Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits the site plan

of the second floor was filed with the application U/s 114

CPC.

However, on perusal of the site plan I found that

same does not contain measurement of the said floor of the

property in question. Hence, again same is not proper

compliance of order dated 06.09.2016. However, in the

interest of justice, last and final opportunity is granted to

appellant to file the affidavit and site plan of said floor within

five working days, subject to payment of costs of Rs.

10,000/- to be deposited with registry of this Tribunal and

copy of the same be supplied to Ld. counsel for respondent

within five days, failing which interim stay shall be vacated.

Ld. counsel for respondent will file the application in

case copy of affidavit is not supplied within five days to this

Tribunal.


respondent as well as final arguments 01.03.2018.



A.No. 86/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Aman Bakshi, proxy counsel for appellant.

Ms. Akansha Dhammi, counsel for SDMC.


counsel is not well and seeks adjournment.


granted for arguments on 29.03.2018.



A.No. 580/16 & 559/16 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Varad Dwivedi, proxy counsel for

appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma / Sh. Manoj Kumar,

counsel for EDMC.


counsel is not available as he has gone back due to medical

emergency of his wife.


granted for final arguments on 28.03.2018.



A.No. 970/14 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Vivek Kumar, proxy counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.


counsel is not available today as he is busy in Hon’ble High

Court and seeks adjournment to argue.

Though this is no ground for adjournment.

However, in the interest of justice, last and final

opportunity is granted for arguments on 12.02.2018.



A.No. 347/14, 348/14 & 473/14 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Rajat Mathur, counsel for appellant.

Sh. V.K. Aggarwal / Sh. Naveen Grover / Sh.

Santosh Prasad Chaurasia, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Raj Bhushan, JLO from EDMC.

Status report filed by Ld. counsel for respondent

which is placed in appeal no. 347/14. Copy supplied. As

per status report the property in question was inspected and

found that construction mentioned in the affidavit filed by

appellant is correct except that chajjas has not been shown

in the site plan.

Ld. counsel for respondent has also filed copy of

PTR of the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2009-2010 and

dated 20.11.2013 and also filed inspection book dated

09.12.1980.

In the meanwhile Ahlmad is directed to tag appeal

no. 213/13 titled as Ravinder Kaur Vs. EDMC decided on

04.02.2013 and appeal nos. 295/13, 316/13 & 622/13, all

decided on 09.01.2016.

Put up this matter for final arguments on 06.03.2018.



A.No. 1005/14 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for SDMC.

Status report filed by Ld. counsel for respondent

alongwith memo of appearance. Copy of status report

supplied. As per status report the property in question was

booked and demolition order was passed on 10.03.2015.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant

property is under protection by virtue of Delhi Laws (Special

Provisions) (Second Amendment) Act, 2014 and this fact is

admitted by respondent in the status report filed by the

respondent in Hon’ble High Court in contempt case 656/16.

Respondent is directed to file status report whether

property is under protection or not in view of status report

filed in Hon’ble High Court.


granted for arguments on 01.02.2018.

In the meanwhile respondent will file status report

what action has been taken qua the impugned order by next

date of hearing.



A.No. 653/16 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Anil Kumar, counsel for appellant.

None for respondent.


granted for final arguments on 29.03.2018.




A.No. 1022/17 06.12.2017



Ld. counsel for appellant has submits that appellant

has already filed application for reopening and respondent

has accepted the process fee charges which means that

they are considering the reopening the regularization

application.

In these circumstances, in my view, when appellant

has already applied for reopening of regularization

application, the appellant cannot challenge the rejection

order as if the reopening application is allowed it amount to

suo moto recalling the impugned order and if rejected

appellant is at liberty to challenge the said order as per law.

In view of above, the appeal is dismissed being

becomes infructuous after filing of reopening of

regularization application by the appellant. File be

consigned to record room.



A.No. 1005/17 06.12.2017



Ld. counsel for respondent submits that original

record has been brought. The same is produced before me.

Arguments heard on application for interim stay.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellants

have constructed the building after obtaining Sanctioned

Building Plan under Saral Scheme which was released vide

ID No. 10039642. He submits that the said plan was

released by the respondent on the ground that size of plot is

more than 100 sq. mtrs., whereas under Saral Scheme only

plot upto 100 sq. mtrs. can be sanctioned. He further

submits that thereafter the appellants have applied for

regularization which was rejected by the respondent vide

order dated 20.10.2017 against which appellant has filed

the application for reopening which is pending for

consideration.

He further submits that appellants are ready to rectify

the property as directed by the respondent while

considering the reopening application.

On the other hand, Ld. counsel for respondent

submits that appellant has first obtained the Sanctioned

Building Plan by misrepresenting and, therefore, the said

plan was revoked, hence, the entire building was become

unauthorized in view of Section 338 of DMC Act. Hence,

the respondent has passed the impugned order for

demolition. He further submits that property in question

cannot be regularized as according to Circular dated

27.04.2011 the stilt is mandatory in the plot measuring 100

sq. mtrs. and above.

Ld. counsel for appellants submits that as per MPD-

2021 there is no mandate for the stilt for plot of 100 sq.

mtrs. and above and further he submits that even if the stilt

is not constructed at the best the respondent can include

the stilt area into FAR.

A.No. 1005/17

I have considered the submissions.

Considering the facts that reopening of regularization

application of the appellant is pending and if the property is

demolished the entire purpose of filing the same is

defeated. Therefore, I order that respondent will not take

any demolition action in the property in question till the

decision on the application for reopening of regularization.

Appellant is also directed not to carry out any

addition, alteration, repair or construction and shall also not

create any third party interest in the property in question.

However, in case any order is found passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble High Court for

demolition/ sealing qua the property in question, then this

order will not come in the way and respondent will comply

the Hon’ble Supreme Court / Hon’ble High Court order.

Case is adjourned to 20.02.2018 for filing of status

report on application for reopening of regularization by the

respondent / final arguments.

Original record is returned. The same be filed before

registry of this Tribunal.



A.No. 396/12 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Neeraj Dubey, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Aakar Bardwaj, counsel for EDMC

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

AE(B) submits that neither any order for sealing U/s

345A of DMC Act has been passed for sealing of the tower

installed at Khasra no. 739/486/85, H. No. 390, Main Road,

Maujpur, Shahdara, Delhi nor the tower has been sealed by

the respondent till date. His statement has been recorded

separately in this regard.

Ld. counsel for appellant also admit that they have

not filed any order passed by respondent qua sealing of the

tower nor they have any such order.

In view of statement of AE(B), since there is no order

passed by respondent which is appealable before this

Tribunal, hence the present appeal is not maintainable and

same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record

room.



A.No. 976/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for appellant.


Ld. counsel for respondent submits that record has

been brought and same will be filed by tomorrow.

On perusal of record I found that respondent had

passed the order for sealing U/s 345A and 419 of DMC Act

on the ground of using the property from residential to

commercial purpose.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant is

ready to give the undertaking that appellant will use the

premises in question for residential purpose and ready to

pay the misuse charges, if any.

In the circumstances, let respondent to file status

report whether appellant is liable to pay misuse charges, if

so what amount.

For this purpose, inspection of the property be

carried out by the respondent on 13.12.2017 at 2.00 PM.




as prayed.



A.No. 1038/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. N.C. Gupta counsel for appellant.

This is an appeal against the order dated 27.11.2017,

whereby, respondent has ordered to demolish the

unauthorized construction in the shape of ground floor to

third floor alongwith projection on municipal land.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that he the

appellant was granted permission to replace the roof of

construction from ground floor to third floor given by the

AE(B) vide letter dated 28.05.2013 and the appellant

submits that he has not carried out any other construction

but due to political rivalry has booked the property in

question for unauthorized construction.

Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to

the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer and

AE(B). AE(B) is directed to file entire record of the

proceedings and reply of the appeal on date fixed.

Put up this matter on 07.12.2017 at 02.00 P.M.

Notice be given dasti, as prayed. .



A.No. 1027/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Nagender Singh proxy counsel for

appellant.

Present appeal has been filed against demolition

order dated 16.11.2017 whereby respondent has ordered to

demolish the unauthorized construction in the shape of

shops at ground floor in property no. E-79/106, Sonia Vihar,

Sabzi Mandi Mandawali, Delhi.


the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer.

AE(B) is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and

reply of the appeal on date fixed.




A.No. 815/16 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. S.D. Ansari counsel for appellant.

Sh. Manoj Kumar proxy counsel for Sh.

Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that cost of Rs.

2,000/- will be deposited today itself.

Ld. proxy counsel for respondent submits that main

counsel was available in the morning but he has left the

court after lunch.

In the circumstances case is adjourned for final

arguments on 29.03.2018.



M.No. 71/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. S.D. Ansari counsel for applicant.

An application for contempt u/s 10 & 11 of the

contempt of court Act has been filed by the counsel for

applicant.

Ld. counsel for applicant submits that this Tribunal

has directed the respond to carry out the inspection of the

property on 01.12.2017 and thereafter again directed on

27.11.2017 to carry out the inspection on 01.12.2017 but

respondent has not carried out inspection of the property in

question, therefore, respondent AE(B) has done contempt

of court hence action be taken against the respondent

AE(B).

Issue notice of the contempt application to the

respondent as well as AE(B) for 11.12. 2017. AE (B) will be

present in the date fixed.

Copy of the order be given dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 1040/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Present appeal has been filed against rejection of

regularization application which was filed by the appellant

vide letter dated 12.09.2017 qua the property situated at

04/92, Khasra No. 163, Peshwar Nagar, Village Dhirpur,

Delhi.


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

is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply

of the appeal on date fixed.




A.No. 1041/17 06.12.2017

Present : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Present appeal has been filed against rejection of

regularization application which was filed by the appellant

vide letter dated 12.09.2017 qua the property situated at

6/149, Khasra No. 161 & 167, Village Dhirpur Abadi, known

as Sant Nirankari Colony, Delhi-110009.


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

is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply

of the appeal on date fixed.




A.No. 1000/16 06.12.2017

Present : None for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.

None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. It is

2.20 PM. Record reveals that no one has been appearing

on behalf the appellant on the last date of hearing also. It

appears that appellant is not interested in pursuing the

present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in default

and for non prosecution.

MCD is at liberty to take action in the property of the

appellant bearing no. F-13 (Part), Gali No. 4, Near Nala,

Second Pusta, Usmanpur, Delhi in pursuance of the

impugned sealing order. File be consigned to record.



A.No. 06.12.2017

Present :



A.No. 06.12.2017

Present :



A.No. 06.12.2017

Present :



A.No. 06.12.2017

Present :



A.No. 06.12.2017

Present :



A.No. 06.12.2017

Present :



A.No. 06.12.2017

Present :



A.No. 06.12.2017

Present :



A.No. Statement of Sh.

ON SA

RO&AC




ON SA

RO&AC




ON SA

RO&AC




ON SA

RO&AC




ON SA

RO&AC



A.No. 396/12 Statement of Sh. A.K. Sinha, AE(B), Shahdara North

ON SA

Neither any order for sealing U/s 345A of DMC Act has been

passed for sealing of the tower installed at Khasra no. 739/486/85, H.

No. 390, Main Road, Maujpur, Shahdara, Delhi nor the tower has been

sealed by the respondent till date.

RO&AC



Documents

A.No. (SANJEEV KUMAR)mcdonline.gov.in/at/dailyordersnew/220_06.12.2017.pdf · 12.12.2017 at 2.00 PM and after inspection reseal the same on the same day. Copy of calculation be also