a.no. 05/14

A.No. 05/14 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Praveen Uppal, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Jitender Singh, JE(B).

Status report filed by the Ld. counsel for respondent.

Copy supplied.

Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that he will

either file the objections to the status report or will carry out

demolition / rectification as mentioned in the status report.

Put up this matter for final arguments on 13.10.2017.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD

29.05.2017

A.No. 430/11 & 547/11 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Jai Kant Prasad, counsel for appellant.

Sh. A.K.Jain / Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for

MCD.

Status report has been filed by Ld. counsel for the

respondent. Copy supplied. As per status report the

property in question was desealed on 21.02.2017 and

resealed on 21.04.2017 and during desealing of the

property on 21.04.2017, it has been observed that the

appellant has carried out only minor demolition.

On the other hand, appellant has filed affidavit in

appeal no. 430/11 that appellant had demolished the portion

of the suit property i.e. stall no.9.

Final arguments heard.

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

20.07.2017. Both the parties are given liberty to file written

submissions, if any, within six weeks.


29.05.2017

A.No. 228/13 29.05.2017

Present : Appellant in person.

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

Sh. Surender Singh, AE(B).

Sh. Shailender Sharma, counsel for R-2 &

R-3.

Status report filed by Ld. counsel for respondent. As

per status report the property in question is protected under

the provisions of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) (Second

Amendment) Act, 2014. The department will take action.

Appellant submits that his counsel is not available

today and seeks adjournment.

In the interest of justice case is adjourned to

17.08.2017 for arguments.


29.05.2017

A.No. 706/15 29.05.2017

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

Sh.A.L.Agnihotri, counsel for MCD alongwith

Sh. Abdul Haq, JLO.

Sh. Praveen Suri, counsel for applicant

alongwith applicant.

Sh. Chanchal Kumar, counsel for DDA

alongwith Sh. Ramesh Chand, Kanungo, Sh.

Dhir Singh, Kanungo and Ms.Neeru Sharma,

Nodal Officer for DDA.

Status report filed by the respondent corporation.

Copy supplied. As per status report no layout plan of Dori

Walan is available.

The respondent corporation has not complied the

further directions i.e. it has not filed status report regarding

the measurement of the property of applicant as well as

appellant.

Further, respondent is also directed to file status

report whether there are windows in plot no. 11298 to 11306

which opened towards the plot no. 14 or not.

The inspection be carried out on 12.06.2017 at 11.00

AM. Both the applicant as well as appellant will cooperate

during the inspection.

The respondent corporation is given last opportunity

to file status report regarding measurement of plot of

appellant as well as applicant, failing which concerned Dy.

Commissioner will appear in person.

Put up this matter for filing of status report by the

respondent 24.07.2017.

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

as prayed.


29.05.2017

A.No. 38/17 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Sumit Rana, proxy counsel for appellant.

Sh. A.K. Mittal, counsel for North DMC.

Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for applicant.

Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that appellant

want to withdraw the present appeal.

Put up this matter on 17.07.2017.


29.05.2017

M.No. 81/16 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for applicant.

Sh. Sanjay Gupta, ALO for MCD.

Proxy counsel for R-2 & R-3.

Put up with connected appeal no. 38/17 on

17.07.2017.


29.05.2017

M.No. 34/17 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Kailash Sharma, counsel for applicant.

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

Sh. Ajay Kumar, AE(B).

Ld. counsel for respondent has filed Vakalatnama.

He also filed status report. Copy supplied. As per

status report this Tribunal has passed the order on

07.03.2017 ordering desealing of the property in question.

After the order the file was processed for desealing and was

sent to Addl. Commissioner through EE(B) on 19.04.2017.

Further, in the status report it is mentioned that as soon as

the approval from the competent authority is received the

property should be desealed.

In my view once this court has passed the order for

desealing of property there is no need for approval from

Senior Officers and if the approval is to be taken, same is to

be taken within stipulated period. The respondent cannot

disobey the order merely on the ground that file has been

sent to Senior Officers. Hence, let show cause notice be

issued against Dy. Commissioner to appear in person and

to explain why the case be not referred to Hon’ble High

Court for initiating contempt proceedings.

Put up this matter for filing of further status report by

the respondent on 04.07.2017.


as prayed.


29.05.2017

A.No. 173/13, 478/13, 479/13, 1018/15 to 1020/15 & 521/13 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Sachin Sangwal / Sh. Satish Kumar,

counsel for appellant.

Sh.A.L.Agnihotri / Sh. Nirmit Gaur / Sh. Mohit

Sharma, counsel for MCD.

Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for DDA in appeal

no. 478/13 & 479/13 alongwith Ms. Neeru

Sharma, Nodal Officer for DDA.

Sh. R.K. Singh, proxy counsel for DDA in

1020/15 alongwith Ms. Neeru Sharma, Nodal

Officer for DDA.

None for Monitoring Committee.

Ld. counsel for DDA submits that meetings are going

on at higher level to decide about the allotment of the land

involved in the case under consideration.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that due to

seepage of water in the properties water has been

accumulated and prayed for temporary desealing be done.

Considering these facts, I order the respondent

corporation to deseal the property in question on

05.06.2017 at 11.00 AM and reseal the same on 09.06.2017

at 5.00 PM.

During the said period, appellant shall also not

create any third party interest in the property in question and

shall not use the same for any other purpose except for

removal of water, sweeping / cleaning of property.

The concerned officer of the DDA and Director RL &

LM will appear in person in case status report not filed.


respondent corporation as well as by the DDA on

29.08.2017.


as prayed.


29.05.2017

A.No. 1209/13 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. K.N.Singh, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant has

gone to deposit the charges, but officials of respondent

refused to take the same on the ground that certified copy of

the order is also liable to be filed alongwith the said amount.

He submits that he will deposit the charges soon.

Put up this matter for filing of report by the

respondent and arguments on 11.07.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 142/14 & 143/14 29.05.2017

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

Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Assistant for NDMC.

Sr. Assistant submits that counsel is not available

today and seeks adjournment.

In the interest of justice, matter is adjourned for

arguments on 05.09.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 382/17 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Deepak Vashisht, counsel for appellant.


Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent filed.

Ld. counsel for respondent seeks time to file reply of

the appeal and record. Let the same be filed.

In the meanwhile respondent will not carry out

demolition action in the property in question bearing no. 38,

Gali Kedarnath, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, qua the impugned

demolition order dated 17.05.2017 till next date of hearing.

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 days failing which status order

granted shall be deemed to be vacated.

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, this order will not come in the way of any

other order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or

Hon’ble High Court.

Put up this matter for filing of reply of appeal and

record by the respondent and final arguments on

06.10.2017.


as prayed.


29.05.2017

Misc. file in A.No. 490/16 to 492/16 29.05.2017

Present : Appellant Ramesh Mittal in person.

Sh. Ashok Kumar, ALO for SDMC.

Appellant submits that he has deposited the costs of

Rs. 50,000/- as directed by this Tribunal.

In view of the same, the file be consigned to record

room.


29.05.2017

A.No. 354/17 & 355/17. 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Anuj Garg, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.

Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent filed.

Record of demolition has already been filed.

However, Ld. counsel for respondent submits that record of

Sanctioned Building Plan is lying in Building Head Quarter

as same has been rejected from Head Quarter and seeks

some more time to file the same. Let the same be filed by

next date of hearing.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that after rejection

of Sanctioned Building Plan another application for

regularization of existing permissible coverage has been

filed vide application dated 27.01.2017. Copy of the same

be supplied to Ld. counsel for respondent.

Let respondent to file the status report of the said

regularization application on 11.10.2017. Respondent will

also file status report whether detail of construction given in

the affidavit is correct or not. Copy of the affidavit be

supplied by the appellant to the Ld. counsel for respondent

today itself.


29.05.2017

A.No. 335/17 & 336/17 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. S.S. Rana, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.

Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that record has

been brought and the same will be filed today itself.

Ld. counsel for the appellant seeks time to inspect

the record.

Hence, case is adjourned for final arguments on

04.08.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 338/17 29.05.2017


Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, proxy counsel for MCD.

Ld. proxy counsel for respondent submits that record

has been brought and the same will be filed today itself.


the record.


04.08.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 337/17 & 339/17 29.05.2017


Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, proxy counsel for MCD.

Vakalatnama on behalf Sh. Sh. Naveen Grover,

counsel for MCD filed.

Ld. proxy counsel for respondent submits that record

has been brought and the same will be filed today itself.


the record.


04.08.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 316/17 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Sunil Kapoor, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Jitender Pal Singh, counsel for EDMC

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



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

25.07.2017.

In the meanwhile respondent will not carry out any

demolition action qua the property in question bearing no. E-

641, Gali No.2, Jagjit Nagar, Usmanpur, Delhi-53 qua the

impugned demolition order dated 25.02.2016 till next date of

hearing.











Hon’ble High Court.


as prayed.


29.05.2017

A.No. 562/15 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Sanjay Sethi, counsel for North DMC.

Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that matter for

compromise with MCD has taken place in Hon’ble High

Court in a petition filed by Cellular Operators Association of

India and now the same is fixed for orders.

Put up this matter for arguments on 23.10.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 377/12 29.05.2017


Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD,

Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that matter for

compromise with MCD has taken place in Hon’ble High

Court in a petition filed by Cellular Operators Association of

India and now the same is fixed for orders.

Put up this matter for arguments on 23.10.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 1196/15 29.05.2017


Ms. Akansha Dhami, counsel for SDMC.

Arguments heard.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that the show

cause notice was signed on 02.09.2013 by the concerned

Dy. Commissioner and same is having dispatch date of

04.09.2013, but there is no proof on record when the said

show cause notice has been sent to the appellant company

or by which mode. He further submits that if it be presumed

that show cause notice was served on 04.09.2013 itself,

respondent JE(B) has initiated the sealing proceedings,

through three days time as mentioned in the notice should

have been given prior to initiating the sealing proceedings,

hence the impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.

Ld. counsel for respondent seeks time to clarify by

which mode the show cause notice was sent and also

whether there is error in putting the date in the noting as she

submits that file has been put up to the AE(B) on

19.09.2013.

Put up this matter for filing of proof of service of show

cause notice by the respondent on 13.10.2017.


as prayed.


29.05.2017

A.No. 851/14 & 873/13 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Gundeep Singh, counsel for appellant.

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

Arora / Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.

Calculation report of misuse charges not filed by the

respondent despite directions.

In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is

granted to file the same subject to costs of Rs. 2000/-,

failing which concerned Dy. Commissioner will appear in

person.

Put up this matter for filing of calculation report by the

respondent on 21.08.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 301/17 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Vikas Chhabra counsel for appellant.



Record has already been filed by the respondent.


In the meanwhile respondent will file status report

whether appellant has filed application for regularization or

not by next date of hearing.


29.05.2017

A.No. 447/16 29.05.2017


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

Status report filed by the Ld. Counsel for respondent.

Copy supplied.

As per status report demolition order passed on

28.03.2016 but action will be taken after following the

process of law in accordance with the policy of corporation.

This report of AE(B) is completely vague and shows the

inability / connivance of the respondent official in protecting

the unauthorized construction when the respondent has

passed the demolition order way back on 09.03.2016, it

should have taken action for demolition immediately against

the portion other than appellant. More than one year has

gone, therefore, in the circumstances, Commissioner,

NDMC is to look into the matter and initiate vigilance enquiry

against the official who are responsible for not carrying out

demolition despite the fact that except appellant none of

other parties have not challenged impugned demolition

order. Further Dy. Commissioner concerned is directed to

file status report whether it intend to take action in

pursuance of impugned order or not.

Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that status report

qua the existing construction could not be filed as copy of

the affidavit has not been supplied. Let appellant to supply

the same to the counsel for respondent today itself.


respondent and arguments on 13.10.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 847/14 & (M) 31/14 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for appellant alongwith

appellant in person.

Sh. Ashutosh Gupta / Sh. Shashikant Sharma,

counsel for MCD.

An application under rule 17 r/w section 151 CPC of DMC

Appellate Tribunal Rules 1986 filed by the appellant in appeal no.

847/14.

Ld. counsel for respondent has no objection to it.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that present appeal has

been filed against sealing order dated 19.09.2014. He further

submits that prior to this appeal appellant has filed appeal bearing

no. 04/12, 05/12 & 353/12 which were decided by Ld.

Predecessor of this Tribunal on 10.01.2012 and my Ld.

Predecessor has restrained the MCD from taking any action for

sealing of the property bearing no. F-51, Ground Floor, Rajouri

Garden, New Delhi on the basis of impugned demolition bearing

no. B/UC/WZ/1/2011/121 dated 25.04.2011 and sealing order

dated 28.11.2011. In the said order my Ld. Predecessor has also

permitted the appellant to use the property for permissible use as

per MPD-2021 but respondent in violation of the said order has

passed the impugned sealing order and sealed the property and

also take demolition action. Therefore, respondent has

committed contempt, hence, contempt application vide 31/14 has

also been filed by the appellant.

On the other hand, Ld. counsel for respondent submits

that appellant has to maintain status quo of the property in terms

of the order passed by my Ld. Predecessor but appellant has

violated the status quo order, hence, fresh sealing order was

passed against property in question.

In these circumstances, in my view, appeal file no. 04/12,

05/12 & 352/12 are necessary.

Ahlmad is directed to tag these files with this case.



29.05.2017

A.No. 380/17 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Avtar Singh, counsel for appellant.

Record has already been filed by the respondent.

However, no counsel has appeared on behalf of the

respondent.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that inadvertently

notice has been affected to the JE(B) instead of Chief Law

Officer. Hence, fresh notice be issued to the respondent for

02.06.2017. Notice be given dasti as prayed.


29.05.2017

A.No. 1083/15 29.05.2017

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

Sh. A.K. Mittal, counsel for MCD.


Ld. counsel for appellant has filed objection to the

status report. He further submits that he has filed an

application under order 22 rule 3 r/w section 151 CPC and

section 17 of Appellate Tribunal Rules for bringing the LRs

of the deceased appellant which is pending for disposal. In

the application, it is stated that appellant was expired on

15.01.2017 leaving behind the following LRs : Smt.

Sudarshan Sharma – Wife, Sh. Bandhu Sharma – Son, Sh.

Arvind Sharma – Son & Ms. Deepti Sharma – Daughter.

Statement of one of the LRs i.e. applicant Sh. Bandhu

Sharma recorded separately in this regard.

Arguments heard.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I allow the

application and substitute above mentioned LRs in place of

appellant.

Amended memo of parties has already been filed by

the applicants. The same is taken on record.

Put up this matter for filing of status report of the

regularization application by the respondent on 11.09.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 384/17 & 385/17 29.05.2017

Present : Ms. Preeti Dinkar, proxy counsel for appellant.

This is an appeal against the sealing order.

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.



29.05.2017

M.No. 26/17 & 27/17 29.05.2017

Present : None for applicant.

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

None has appeared on behalf of the applicant.

Put up this matter at 02.00 PM.


29.05.2017 02.45 PM

Present : As above.

No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant

despite several calls since morning. Hence, application filed

by the applicant for setting aside the order dated 09.02.2017

is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution. File be consigned

to record.


29.05.2017

A.No. 390/17 29.05.2017

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

Present appeal has been filed against the vacation

notice.







29.05.2017

A.No. 383/17 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Satish Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Present appeal has been filed against demolition

order dated 08.05.2017.

Ld. Counsel for appellant has filed photographs of

the property in question.

Arguments heard on application for interim stay.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that respondent

has also issued show cause notice to the appellant on

06.03.2007 for covering the open area of 28 m X 3 m of D-

26-28, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi without

obtaining the approval of Chairman, New Delhi Municipal

Council with the help of fiber sheets for covering the open

stare case of 8.5 ft. But it has closed the case in 2008 and

after that respondent after a period of ten years has passed

the impugned order with respect to the same area.

He submits that in the impugned order respondent

has mentioned the covered area of 28 m X 3 m at D-26-28,

First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi whereas he has

not covered anything.

He has relied upon the photographs filed today. He

further submits that the passage / verandah is open and

there is difference of about five feet in his property of the

grill of the roof. He also submits that appellant has not

carried out any unauthorized construction in the property

and he has only change the A.C. Sheets near the lift.

I have considered the arguments and gone through

the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances, in my view

it is a fit case for grant of ex-parte interim injunction,

therefore, I order that respondent will not carry out any

demolition action in the property of the appellant bearing no.

D-26-28, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi till next

date of hearing in pursuance of the impugned order dated

08.05.2017 till next date of hearing.

A.No. 383/17











Hon’ble High Court qua the property in question.





Put up this matter on 09.06.2017. Copy of the order

be given dasti, as prayed.


29.05.2017

M.No. 38/17 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Deepak Bansal, counsel for appellant.

An application has been filed on behalf of the

appellant Sh. R.K. Jauhar who has expired on 14.03.2017

and the order was passed on 23.03.2017. Therefore, LRs

of the appellant be allowed to file affidavit in place of

deceased appellant.

In these circumstances, notice of the application be

issued to the respondent for 07.07.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 108/17 & 179/17 29.05.2017

Present : None for appellant.

Sh. Sanjay Sethi / Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, proxy

counsel for Sh. Naveen Grover, counsel for

MCD.

Ld. Counsel for respondent has filed Vakalatnama in

appeal no. 179/17. None has appeared on behalf of

appellant.


granted for final arguments on 11.10.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 392/15 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. N.P. Vishwakarma, counsel for appellant

alongwith appellant in person.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Raj Bhushan, JLO from EDMC.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that appellant

has sought time from AE(B) to carry out demolition after

examination of his daughter.

On the other hand, Ld. counsel for appellant submits

that appellant seeks time to argue.


granted for arguments on 21.09.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 1007/16 & 1008/16 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Ashish Garg, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Praveen Sharma, counsel for respondent.

Ld. Counsel for appellant seeks some more time to

file objection to the status report.


granted to file the same on 05.09.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 282/11 29.05.2017

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

Ms. Sarita, proxy counsel for Sh. Umesh

Gupta, counsel for MCD.

Objection against status report filed by the

respondent. Copy supplied.



29.05.2017

A.No. 391/17 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. Rishipal Singh, counsel for appellant.

Present appeal has been filed against the demolition

order dated 18.05.2017.

Arguments heard on application for interim stay.

Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that appellant has not

carried out any construction in the property in question and the

construction is old. He has relied upon the electricity bill.

I have consider the arguments and gone through the

record.

Considering the facts and circumstances, in my view, it is

a fit case for grant of ex-parte interim injunction, therefore, I order

that respondent will not carry out any demolition action in the

property of the appellant bearing no. 38, Gali No. 3, Prem Nagar,

Delhi till next date of hearing in pursuance of the impugned order

dated 18.05.2017 till next date of hearing.



alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property in

question within five days failing which status order granted shall

be deemed to be vacated.

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, this order will not come in the way of any other

order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble High

Court qua the property in question.

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 14.07.2017. Copy of the order be

given dasti, as prayed.


29.05.2017

A.No. 516/13 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. G.S. Narula, counsel for appellant.

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

Umesh Gupta, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.

Kuldeep Chopra, AE(B).


Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant has

deposited the misuse charges of Rs. 14,01,910/- as

demanded by the respondent corporation. He has also filed

copy of the G-8 Receipt no. 71758 dated 12.04.2017 in

support of his contention.


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

10.07.2017. Both parties are at liberty to file written

submission, if any, within two weeks.


29.05.2017

A.No. 861/16, 888/16 & 1013/16 29.05.2017

Present : Sh. G.K. Chauhan, counsel for appellant.

Sh. V.K. Aggarwal / Sh. A.K. Mittal / Sh. A.L.

Agnihotri, counsel for MCD.

File taken up on an application filed on behalf of the

appellant for early hearing and counsel for appellant prays

for temporary desealing of the property to remove goods

from the property in question.

Ld. Counsel for respondent, Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, who

is counsel for respondent in appeal no. 861/16 submits that

he has no objection to this request of the appellant.

Considering the fact, I allow the application and order

the respondent to temporary deseal the property in question

on 06.06.2017 at 10.00 AM and reseal the same on

09.06.2017 at 04.00 PM.

Appellant is directed not to carry out any addition,

alteration, repair or construction except removing the goods

from the premises in question and shall also not create any

third party interest in the property in question.

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

28.07.2017. Copy of the order be given dasti to both the

parties, as prayed.


29.05.2017

A.No. 913/13 29.05.2017

Present : None for the parties.

This case is fixed for orders, however, I am busy in

the dictating order in some other appeal.

Hence, put up this appeal for order/clarification on

27.07.2017.


29.05.2017

A.No. 29.05.2017

Present :


29.05.2017

A.No. Statement of Sh. ON SA

RO&AC


29.05.2017

A.No. 1083/15 Statement of Sh. Bandhu Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Dev Sharma, aged 53 years, R/o S-2, Dhruv Apartments, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-85 ON SA

I am son of appellant who has expired on 15.01.2017. Copy of

death certificate is Exb.P-1. He has left behind following LRs :

1. Smt. Sudarshan Sharma wife

2. Sh. Bandhu Sharma son

3. Sh. Arvind Sharma son

4. Ms. Deepti Sharma daughter

He has not left behind any other LRs and has not executed any

Will. This is my true and correct statement. Photo Copy of my Aadhar

Card is Ex.P-2 (OSR).

RO&AC


29.05.2017

a.no. 05/14

Documents