a.no. 401/15 in the interest of justice, last and final...

A.No. 401/15 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Ankur Gupta, counsel for EDMC.

Ld. counsel for respondent seeks some more time to

file the record on the ground that same could not be traced.

In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is

granted for filing the record by the respondent on

10.11.2017.

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

(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD

04.07.2017

A.No. 216/14 04.07.2017


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


file status report regarding the application filed by the

appellant for regularization of the tower.


granted for filing the status report, failing which concerned

Dy. Commissioner will appear in person.

Put up this matter on 30.08.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 785/15 04.07.2017


Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for SDMC.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that respondent Dy.

Commissioner had earlier passed the order dated

08.12.2009 regarding sealing of the tower installed at

premises in question, which was challenged by the

appellant vide appeal no. 78/10. Ld. Predecessor of this

Tribunal set aside the said sealing order and remand back

the case to the Quasi Judicial Authority to pass the fresh

sealing order and thereafter the Dy. Commissioner has

passed the order dated 28.05.2012, whereby he has

specifically stated that department has wrongly booked the

tower installed at roof top of property no. B-21, Vishnu

Garden Part-I, New Delhi and if department want to take

sealing action of tower installed at property no. B-20, Vishnu

Garden Part-I, New Delhi (i.e. the tower of appellant) in that

event department to initiate fresh action. He submits that

from the said order it is evident that respondent cannot seal

the tower of the appellant company installed at property no.

B-20, Vishnu Garden Part-I, New Delhi on the basis of the

said order, hence, the action of sealing by the respondent is

illegal / unauthorized.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that she need

clarification from the department whether any other order

has been passed after remand back of the matter to seal the

tower in question.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I direct the

respondent to file status report by which order tower

installed at property in question was sealed and file

complete record on 05.09.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 469/16 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Kuldeep Vashist, counsel for appellant.

Sh. K.K. Arora, counsel for North DMC

alongwith Sh. Anil Kumar, LI.

Sh. Manoj Kumar, counsel for DSIDC.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant has

deposited the misuse charges as demanded by the

respondent corporation and further ready to give

undertaking that he will not use the property for industrial

purpose.

LI admits that amount has been deposited by the

appellant.

Final arguments heard.

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

21.07.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 404/15 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Sameer Abhyankar, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.

Status report filed by the respondent. Copy supplied.

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks time to file the reply

of the status report / depositing the amount.

In the circumstances, case is adjourned to

19.09.2017 for final arguments.


04.07.2017

A.No. 497/13 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Shivender Mishra, proxy counsel for

appellant.

Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.

None for Monitoring Committee.

Ld. counsel for respondent has filed status report.

Copy supplied. In the status report it is mentioned that the

appellant got premises registered on 30.06.2007 for

professional activity and also paid an amount of Rs 15,360/-

on account of conversion charges for the year 2006-07. In

the report it is also mentioned that there is stay by Hon’ble

High Court against demanding any kind of charges on

processional activity.

Let respondent to file the judgment / order regarding

stay.


pay the costs.

Put up this matter for filing of judgment / order and

record by the respondent and arguments on 03.10.2017.

AE(B) concerned will appear on the date fixed.

Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for

respondent, as prayed.


04.07.2017

A.No. 821/14 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Vipin Bhaker, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Udit Chawla, proxy counsel for Sh.

Abhishek Kaushik, counsel for SDMC

alongwith Sh. Ravi Kumar, AE(B).

Sh. Ramnish Khanna, counsel for respondent

no.2.

Ld. counsel for appellant has filed objections to

status report filed by the respondent no.1.

Ld. counsel for respondent corporation has filed

status report alongwith calculation of misuse charges. Copy

supplied.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that despite fixing

the date for 17.04.2017 for inspection the inspection has

been carried out only on yesterday and, thus, the order of

this Tribunal has been violated.

AE(B) submits that concerned AE(B) was on medical

leave and only three days prior to today the file has been

handed over to him and he has carried out the inspection.

Hence, it appears that the then AE(B) has not complied the

order of this Tribunal. Therefore, the Commissioner MCD is

directed to initiate vigilance inquiry against the concerned

AE(B) for delectation and further directed to deduct the

costs of Rs. 10,000/- from his salary as directed by this

Tribunal on the previous date of hearing and deposit the

same with the Registry of this Tribunal.

Appellant is at liberty to deposit the charges or file

objections against the status report, if any.

Put up this matter for final arguments on 03.10.2016.

Copy of the order be given dasti to Nodal Officer for

information and compliance.


04.07.2017

A.No. 947/16 & 948/16 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Shailender Negi, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for North DMC.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is

not contacting him, therefore, he will seek instructions from

the appellant whether he is interested to continuing the

appeal or not.


granted for final arguments on 03.11.2017.

In the meanwhile respondent is directed to file status

report what action has been taken against the property in

question qua the impugned demolition order and any further

action is required or not.

Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for

respondent, as prayed.


04.07.2017

A.No. 401/14 & 615/13 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Gian Chand, counsel for MCD alongwith

Sh. S.P. Garg, AE(B).

Sh. Sujoy Gaur, proxy counsel for Sh. Navin

Mata, counsel for Monitoring Committee.

Ld. counsel for respondent has filed status report

which is placed in appeal no. 615/13. Copy supplied. As

per status report the matter was referred to Town Planning

Department and Town Planning Department has reported

that the property is not abutting on Najafgarh Road i.e.

notified mixed land/used street. In the report it is not

mentioned whether the property of appellant is situated on a

non notified road or street or notified road for commercial

purpose, therefore, specific report be filed whether the

property in question is situated on non notified road / street

for commercial purpose. Further, the respondent will file

status report whether there are any other commercial

activity is being run on the road / street, on which appellant’s

property is situated, if so whether they are permitted or not

and if not what action has been taken against those shop

keepers.

Put up this matter for filing of specific status report by

the respondent on 18.09.2017.

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

as prayed.


04.07.2017

A.No. 1064/13, 1065/13, 1033/12 & 1085/13 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Anil Goswami, proxy counsel for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma / Ms. Nishi Jain, proxy

counsel for Sh. Mohit Sharma /

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

Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that main

counsel is not available and seeks adjournment.


granted for final arguments on 07.11.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 441/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Rajiv Khosla, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for North DMC.


Ld. counsel for respondent submits that appellant

has filed an application for extension of time to carry out the

rectification in the property in question, for which file has

been sent to Head Quarter and therefore, seeks time to file

the reply of appeal and record.

In the interest of justice, matter is adjourned for filing

reply of the appeal and record by the respondent on

07.07.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 410/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for MCD.

Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent filed.

Ld. counsel for respondent seeks time to file

vakalatnama, reply of appeal and record.

Put up this matter for filing of vakalatnama, reply of

appeal and record by the respondent on 11.07.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 404/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Himal Akhtar, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Nishi Jain, proxy counsel for Sh. Mohit

Sharma, counsel for EDMC alongwith Sh. Raj

Bhushan, JLO from EDMC.

Status report has already been filed by the

respondent AE(B). Let copy of the same be supplied to Ld.

counsel for the appellant.

Record has already been filed by the respondent.

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks time to inspect the

record.

Hence, case is adjourned for final arguments on

01.08.2017.


04.07.2017

M.No. 34/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Kailash Sharma, counsel for applicant.

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

Sh. Vipin Kumar, EE, Sh. Ajay Sinha, AE(B)

and Sh. S.B. Dabi, JLO.

Status report filed by the respondent. Copy supplied.

As per status report the property in question has been

desealed on 30.06.2017.

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks time to verify from the

appellant whether the property in question has been

desealed or not.

In the circumstances case is adjourned to 31.07.2017

for arguments.


04.07.2017

A.No. 496/16 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Gundeep Singh, proxy counsel for

appellant.


Ld. counsel for appellant has filed copy of sale deed

of ownership of property alongwith photocopy of G8 receipt

regarding depositing of amount and will file undertaking that

he will use the property in question for residential purpose of

any other purpose as permitted in MPD-2021.

Ld. counsel for the respondent submits that appellant

has deposited the misuse charges.


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

24.07.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 761/16 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Gundeep Singh, proxy counsel for

appellant.


File taken up on an application for early hearing.

Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that appellant

has deposited the 10 times penalty as demanded by the

respondent.

Let respondent to file status report whether amount

has been deposited or not.

Put up this matter for filing of status report by the

respondent on the date already fixed i.e. 08.08.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 241/17 & 242/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Vikram Dua, counsel for appellant.

Sh. H.R. Aggarwal / Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for

North DMC alongwith Sh. Basant, LI.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that record has been

brought and the same will be filed today itself.


Ld. counsel for appellant has filed provisional factory

licence granted by the Factory Licencing Department of MCD on

23.12.2016.

He submits that appellant is ready to give the undertaking

that he will not use the premises in question for Industrial purpose

without obtaining permission from the concerned department for

running industrial activities. He also submits that no show cause

notice was served upon the appellant prior to sealing the property

in question.

On the other hand, Ld. counsel for respondent submits

that the property no.20, Shopping Complex, Milan Cinema,

Karampura was having two shops which were sealed vide sealing

notice dated 19.12.2016 on 20.12.2016 and notice was issued to

Ram Babu. He further submits that since there was no licence for

running factory when the property in question was sealed,

therefore, impugned order is legal.

I have considered the arguments.

Let respondent to file status report whether Industrial

activities which were run by the appellant at the time of sealing of

property can be run in the premises in question or not and

whether appellant is liable to pay any misuse charges, if so what

amount.

For this purpose, the respondent is given liberty to deseal

the property for the purpose of inspection on 10.07.2017 at 2.00

PM and reseal the same after inspection on the same day.

Put up this matter for filing of status report by the

respondent on 31.08.2017. Copy of calculation charges be

supplied to appellant atleast two weeks prior to the date fixed.


04.07.2017

A.No. 1227/13 to 1236/13 04.07.2017

Present : Counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks time to file

clarification.

Put up this matter for clarification if any /orders on

09.08.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 635/13 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Bhavya Sethi, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.

None for applicants.



An application under order 1 rule 10 CPC to implead

the applicants Sh. Kapil Dua and Ors. is pending for

disposal but none has appeared on behalf of applicants.


granted for filing of reply / arguments on 25.09.2017.

Advance copy of the reply be supplied at least two

weeks prior to the date fixed.


04.07.2017

A.No. 667/13 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Bhavya Sethi, counsel for appellant.


Sh. Harsh Kohli, counsel for applicants.



An application under order 1 rule 10 CPC to implead

the applicants Sh. Kapil Dua and Ors. is pending for

disposal. Copy of the same supplied.

Put up this matter for filing of reply / arguments on

the said application on 25.09.2017.

Advance copy of the reply be supplied at least two

weeks prior to the date fixed.


04.07.2017

A.No. 646/15 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Anil Goswami, proxy counsel for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.

Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that main

counsel is not available and seeks time to argue.

In the interest of justice, matter is adjourned for

arguments on 25.09.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 953/16 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Rupesh Sharma, counsel for appellant.

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

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks some more time on

the ground that he has sought some information from

DSIDC Patparganj regarding the factory of Sh. Jagdish

Singh, in whose name notice has been issued by the

respondent corporation.




04.07.2017

A.No. 455/13 to 458/13 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. R.K. Pathak, proxy counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta / Sh. Umesh Gupta,

counsel for MCD.



This case is fixed for final arguments, however, proxy

counsel for appellant submits that main counsel has got late

due to which he could not reach Delhi and seeks

adjournment.




04.07.2017

A.No. 554/13 04.07.2017

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


Ld. counsel for appellant has filed copy of the receipt

regarding depositing the misuse charges. Ld counsel for

respondent admits that AE(B) has informed him regarding

the depositing the said amount.


Put up for clarification, if any, / orders on 28.07.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 1158/15 04.07.2017


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

Ld. proxy counsel for respondent submits that main

counsel is not available and seeks adjournment.


granted for arguments on 10.11.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 186/16 04.07.2017


Ms. Akansha Dhammi, counsel for SDMC

alongwith Sh. Sushil Kumar, AE(B).

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that sealing

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

She submits that the property on which tower has been

installed is a double storey flat. The ground floor is having

property no. E-39/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New

Delhi and first floor of the flat bearing no. E-40/IV, Old

Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar,New Delhi. Sealing order has

been passed from the address of E-39/IV, Old Double

Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi wrongly. She further

submits that there is a permission to install the tower at the

roof top of premises No. E-40/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat

Nagar, New Delhi but due to confusion sealing order was

passed.

She has also produced the record. AE(B) also admits

to the fact that there is a permission to install the tower on

the roof top of premises no. E-40/IV, Old Double Storey,

Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and the tower is installed at the

said premises and not at property no E-39/IV, Old double

Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Statement of the AE(B)

has been recorded in this regard separately.

In view of the statement of the AE(B) and considering

the facts and circumstances, I allow the appeal and order to

deseal the tower of the appellant installed at the roof top of

property no.E-40/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New

Delhi within ten days from today. Original record is returned.

Photo copy of the record be filed today itself. File be

consigned to record room.


04.07.2017

A.No. 465/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. S.D. Dixit, counsel for appellant.

This is an appeal against the order dated 07.12.2013,

whereby respondent has order to demolish the unauthorized

construction which is beyond Sanctioned Building Plan in

the premises bearing no. A-1, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar,

New Delhi.

Ld. counsel for appellant has filed some documents

including copy of impugned order. He submits that he has

obtained the documents from RTI from respondent

corporation.

An application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of

Limitation Act has also been filed alongwith the appeal.

Let notice of the appeal and application for

condonation of delay 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.



04.07.2017

A.No. 447/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. R.P.S. Sirohi, counsel for appellant.

This is an appeal against the order passed U/s 343 of

DMC Act for demolition of tower installed at premises no. G-

70/3, Kiran Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

Arguments heard.

Admittedly appellant is not the owner of the tower

about which demolition order has been passed and he just

the owner of the land on which the said tower is installed,

therefore, in my view the owner of tower is a necessary

party

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that he will file the

application to implead the owner of the tower.

Put up this matter for further proceedings on

24.07.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 468/17 04.07.2017

Present : Ms. Vimlesh Gupta, proxy counsel for

appellant.

This is an appeal against the demolition 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.

Put up this matter on 14.07.2017. Notice be issued

dasti.


04.07.2017

A.No. 466/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. V.K. Upadhayay, counsel for appellants

alongwith appellants.

This is an appeal against the demolition order dated

10.03.2017 passed U/s 343 of DMC Act, whereby

respondent has order to demolish the unauthorized

construction in the shape of entire stilt to third floor.

Alongwith appeal an application of condonation of delay has

also been filed.

Let notice of the appeal and application for

condonation of delay 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.



04.07.2017

A.No. 968/16 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Adesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for

appellant.

File taken up on an application for withdrawal of the

appeal.

Issue notice of the application to the respondent for

the date already fixed i.e. 30.08.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 586/16 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. R.C. Gupta, counsel for appellant.

File taken up on an application for grant of stay.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that respondent

has issued the vacation notice U/s 349 of DMC Act,

whereby directed the appellant to vacate the premises. He

submits that since appeal against demolition is pending,

therefore, operation of vacation notice be stayed till the

pendency of the appeal.

In my view the application has no permits as the

appellant has not got any stay in the main appeal from

carrying out demolition action. Hence, the application is

dismissed.

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

26.09.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 481/15 04.07.2017

Present : None.

File taken up today on the affidavit filed by the

appellant in compliance of the order dated 02.06.2017.

As per the report of Ahlmad dimension of the

construction has not been mentioned in the affidavit as

directed by this Tribunal.

None has appeared on behalf of appellant.


05.09.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 1012/16 04.07.2017

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

File taken up on an application for early hearing.

This court diary does not permit any short date,

hence the application is dismissed.


27.07.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 633/16 & 942/16 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Deepak Vohra, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Raj Bhushan, JLO from EDMC.

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks some time to argue

the matter.

In the interest of justice, case is adjourned for



04.07.2017

A.No. 481/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. G.r. Verma counsel for appellant.

Present appeal has been filed against demolition

order.







04.07.2017

A.No. 480/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Ayush Gupta counsel for appellant.


order dated 26.05.2016.





Put up this matter on 12.07.2017. Notice be given

dasti as prayed.


04.07.2017

A.No. 479/17 04.07.2017









dasti as prayed.


04.07.2017

A.No. 478/17 04.07.2017









dasti as prayed.


04.07.2017

A.No. 462/17 to 464/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Firozuddin, proxy counsel for appellant.

Sh.V.K.Aggarwal / Ms. Manjusha Jha / Sh.

Jatinder Pal Singh, counsel for MCD alongwith

Sh. S.K. Katara, AE(B).


Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that record is

lying with appeal no. 241/15 titled as ‘Mohd. Irfan Vs. EDMC

which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.07.2016.

Ahlmad is directed to tag the said file.

Put up this matter at 02.00 PM.


04.07.2017 03.00 PM

Present : Sh. Firozuddin, proxy counsel for appellant.

Ms. Kriti Aggarwal / Ms. Manjusha Jha / Sh.

Jatinder Pal Singh, counsel for MCD alongwith

Sh. S.K. Katara, AE(B).

Ahlmad has tagged the file. Ld. proxy counsel for

appellant submits that main counsel is not available and

seeks adjournment which is strongly opposed by the Ld.

counsel for respondent.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that appellant

has obtained the stay by concealing the facts of filing of

previous appeal. Hence, stay be vacated.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

put up this matter on 05.07.2017.


04.07.2017

A.No. 476/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. M.S. Khan, counsel for appellant.


order dated 11.06.2017 passed by the AE(B) u/s 343 of the

DMC Act to the owner of property bearing no. 2450, ground

floor, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, GTB Nagar, Delhi.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that though the

order has been passed for demolition of the unauthorized

construction from ground floor to third floor but appellant is

the owner of ground floor whereas rest of the property has

been purchased by different owners. He further submits

that the property in question was constructed as per

Sanctioned Building Plan dated 11.01.1994, and the

respondent has mentioned the area of 80.11 sq. mtr. was

sanctioned for ground floor.

He submits that existing area of ground floor is

130.99 sq. mtr. at ground floor and same was constructed

way back and is under protection as same is prior to

07.02.2007. He further submits that the area shown in

property tax return for the year 2006-07 is 111.89 sq. mtr.

for ground floor but respondent has only calculated the area

as 130 sq. mtr. including the area of open space and stair

case which do not come in covered area. He further

submits that the respondent has passed the said order to

give the benefit to the owner of second floor because

second floor owner was raising the construction on third

floor which was objected by the owner of ground floor and

first floor and when the complaint was made before the

MCD thereafter, writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble

High Court.

I have considered the arguments and gone through

the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

in my view, it is a fit case for grant of ex-parte interim

injunction.

A.No. 476/17

Hence, I order that respondent corporation will not carry out

any demolition action in the property of the appellant

bearing no. 2450, ground floor, Hudson Line, Kingsway

Camp, GTB Nagar, Delhi qua the impugned demolition

order till next date of hearing. However, it is clarified that

the respondent has liberty to carry out demolition on other

floors of the property in question.

Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details of

construction with measurements of the existing construction

alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property

in question within five 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.





Put up this matter on 28.07.2017. Copy of the order

be given dasti, as prayed.


04.07.2017

A.No. 482/17 04.07.2017

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


order dated 15.02.2017 passed u/s 343 of the DMC Act

whereby respondent has ordered to demolish unauthorized

construction at terrace of third floor (fourth floor) in the

property of the appellant bearing no. D-108, Panchsheel

Enclave, New Delhi-110017.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that the property at

fourth floor consists of one room with bathroom (servant

quarter) which was constructed way back i.e. much prior to

07.02.2007. He further submits that respondent official

have not considered the documents filed by the appellant

i.e. various complaints filed by his brother to the authorities

including MCD regarding raising of the said construction.

He further submits that the appellant could not file

the appeal as appellant has approached the respondent

official but they have not considered the documents and

they were under the impression that the respondent has

revoked the order and he came to know on 07.06.2017

when the respondent issued the order u/s 343 of the DMC

Act and then he approached to this court.

I have considered the arguments and gone through

the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

in my view, it is a fit case for grant of ex-parte interim

injunction. Hence, I order that respondent corporation will

not carry out any demolition action in the fourth floor of the

property of the appellant bearing no. D-108, Panchsheel

Enclave, New Delhi-110017 qua the impugned demolition

order 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.

A.No. 482/17

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.





Put up this matter on 03.08.2017. Copy of the order

be given dasti, as prayed.


04.07.2017

A.No. 483/17 04.07.2017

Present : Sh. Rajat Srivastav, counsel for appellant.


order.







04.07.2017

A.No. 385/15, 428/15 & 429/15 04.07.2017

Present : None for the parties.

Vide separate common detailed order, the appeals

bearing no. 385/15 and 428/15 are dismissed and appeal

bearing no. 429/15 is allowed and remanded back to the

respondent for fresh decision.

The file of the department, if any, be returned to the

respondent alongwith copy of this order. One copy of the

order be sent to Commissioner concerned through Chief

Law Officer concerned for necessary action. One attested

copy of the order be placed in appeal bearing no. 428/15

and 429/15 and original be kept in appeal no. 385/15. Files

be consigned to record room.


04.07.2017

A.No. 1003/16 04.07.2017

Present : None for the parties.

This case is fixed for orders, however, some

clarifications is required regarding the attorney executed by

appellant in favour of Sh. Vijay Sharma.



04.07.2017

A.No. 04.07.2017

Present :


04.07.2017

A.No. Statement of Sh.

ON SA

RO&AC


04.07.2017

A.No. 186/16 Statement of Sh. Sushil Kumar, AE(B),Central Zone.

ON SA

It is submitted that the property on which tower is installed is a

double storey flat. The ground floor is having property no. E-39/IV, Old

double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and first floor of flat No. is E-

40/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and permission has

been granted to install the tower in property no. E-40/IV, Old Double

Storey, Lajpat Nagar , New Delhi but due to confusion sealing order has

been passed for the address of E-39/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat

Nagar, New Delhi and the tower is installed at the roof top of property No.

E-40/IV, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.

RO&AC


04.07.2017

a.no. 401/15 in the interest of justice, last and final...

Documents