Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent and arguments on 01.02.2018.
Copy of the order be given dasti to all the parties, as
prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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).
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for taking action, failing which concerned Dy.
Commissioner will appear in person.
Put up this matter on 22.03.2018.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 697/16 06.12.2017
Present : Sh. Vikram Verma, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 698/16 06.12.2017
Present : Sh. Vikram Verma, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Put up this matter with connected appeal no. 697/16
on 29.03.2018.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
Status report filed by the respondent. Copy supplied.
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.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent and arguments on 26.02.2018.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 642/10 06.12.2017
Present : Sh. Mohan K. Kukreja, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed by the respondent. Copy supplied.
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 643/10 06.12.2017
Present : Sh. Mohan K. Kukreja, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed by the respondent. Copy supplied.
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.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent on 22.02.2018.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent on 29.03.2018.
Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent on 29.03.2018.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent as well as final arguments 01.03.2018.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 86/17 06.12.2017
Present : Sh. Aman Bakshi, proxy counsel for appellant.
Ms. Akansha Dhammi, counsel for SDMC.
Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that main
counsel is not well and seeks adjournment.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for arguments on 29.03.2018.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that main
counsel is not available as he has gone back due to medical
emergency of his wife.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for final arguments on 28.03.2018.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 970/14 06.12.2017
Present : Sh. Vivek Kumar, proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that main
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 653/16 06.12.2017
Present : Sh. Anil Kumar, counsel for appellant.
None for respondent.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for final arguments on 29.03.2018.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 1022/17 06.12.2017
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 1005/17 06.12.2017
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 976/17 06.12.2017
Present : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
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.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent and arguments on 16.02.2018.
Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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. .
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
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.
Put up this matter on 20.12.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
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.
Put up this matter on 06.02.2018.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
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.
Put up this matter on 06.02.2018.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 06.12.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 06.12.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 06.12.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 06.12.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 06.12.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 06.12.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 06.12.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. 06.12.2017
Present :
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. Statement of Sh.
ON SA
RO&AC
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. Statement of Sh.
ON SA
RO&AC
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. Statement of Sh.
ON SA
RO&AC
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. Statement of Sh.
ON SA
RO&AC
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
A.No. Statement of Sh.
ON SA
RO&AC
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017
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
(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.12.2017