Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A.No. 797/17 26.10.2018
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer for North DMC.
None has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Put up this matter for arguments on 27.05.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 586/18 26.10.2018
Present : Ms. Monika Singh, proxy counsel for
appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. P.K. Pandey, AE(B).
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Reply to the status report of the respondent filed by
the appellant. Copy supplied.
Main counsel for appellant is not available.
Put up this matter for arguments on maintainability of
the appeal on 19.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 842/14 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, proxy counsel for Sh.
Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Nagina Jain, proxy counsel for Sh. V.K.
Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Main counsels are not available.
Put up this matter for arguments on 28.02.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 171/14 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, proxy counsel for Sh.
Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Nagina Jain, proxy counsel for Sh. V.K.
Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Status report not filed by the respondent.
Concerned AE(B) is not present.
Concerned Dy. Commissioner is directed to appear
in person alongwith status report on 07.12.2018.
Copy of order be given Dasti to the respondent for
compliance.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 686/15 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, proxy counsel for Sh.
Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for MCD
Status report regarding dismantle of tower by the
appellant not filed as the statement was made by AR of
appellant company for dismantling the tower in question
within four weeks.
Put up this matter for filing status report by both
parties / dismissal of appeal on 07.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 1176/13 & 109/13 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, proxy counsel for Sh.
Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer for
North DMC.
Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant is stated to be
ill and not available.
Adjournment sought on behalf of appellant.
Put up this matter for arguments on 28.02.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 376/17 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, counsel for
appellant.
Sh. Surender Singh, counsel for MCD.
Copy of application alongwith G-8 receipt dated
05.02.2018 filed before the respondent by the appellant has
been placed on record. Copy of said application supplied to
counsel for respondent.
Put up this matter for filing status report by the
respondent regarding decision on the said application on
28.02.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 548/14 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, proxy counsel for Sh.
Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Nagina Jain, proxy counsel for Sh. H.R.
Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer for North DMC.
AR of the appellant company is not present for
making the statement regarding dismantling of tower in
question.
No application for regularization filed by the
appellant.
Respondent is at liberty to take action as per law and
file status report on 28.02.2019.
Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for
compliance.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 385/17 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, proxy counsel for Sh.
Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Nagina Jain, proxy counsel for Sh. V.K.
Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Adjournment sought on behalf of respondent to file
the status report.
Concerned AE(B) is directed to appear in person
alongwith status report in compliance of order dated
09.08.2018.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent and arguments on 28.02.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 986/16 & 392/17 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, proxy counsel for Sh.
Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Surender Singh / Ms. Nirmala Sharma,
counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Sushil Kumar,
AE(B).
Status report filed stating that the file is not traceable.
It is further submitted that the appellant is required to
move fresh application for regularization of mobile tower.
Copy of status report supplied to the appellant for
taking necessary action whatever required.
Respondent is directed to trace the file and produce
the record on 28.02.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 139/12 & 555/12 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. A.K. Trivedi, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Mohit Sharma, counsel for MCD in appeal
no. 139/12.
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD in appeal
no. 555/12.
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for DDA in appeal
no. 139/12 alongwith Ms. Anju Sharma, JLO
from DDA, Sh. Kanwar Singh, Kanoongo from
DDA and Sh. Subhash Gupta, Naib Tehsildar,
LM North Zone, DDA.
None for SDM, Saraswati Vihar.
Written submissions filed on behalf of appellant in
appeal no. 555/12. Copy supplied.
Appeal file bearing no. 162/12 not attached with this
file despite directions. Ahlmad is warned to be careful in
future and directed to attach the file.
An affidavit of Dy. Director, Land Management of
DDA has been filed containing objections to the
demarcation report dated 25.07.2018.
Nodal Officer for MCD submitted that the copy of
demarcation report filed by the SDM, Saraswati Vihar has
not been given since no one is present on behalf of SDM.
Notice be issued to the SDM to appear in person to
supply the copy to the North DMC.
Ld. counsel for DDA submitted that the objections
has been prepared on the basis of information and expert
advice of Naib Tehsildar, Sh. Subhash Gupta, LM North
Zone of DDA and Sh. Kanwar Singh, Kanoongo.
Both of them submitted that M/s N.K. Engineers has
not consulted and asked to present at spot of the
demarcation.
A.No. 139/12 & 555/12 - 2 -
Ld. counsel for appellant submitted that let an
affidavit be taken from Kanoongo and Naib Tehsildar in
support of the objections filed today which has been
prepared on their directions and advice.
Naib Tehsildar / concerned Dy. Director, LM, DDA is
directed to file affidavit in support of the objections to the
demarcation report which was filed before this Tribunal on
25.08.2018.
SDM concerned and representatives of N.K.
Engineers are also directed to appear in person to clarify
the objections of the DDA.
Put up this matter for appearance of SDM and N.K.
Engineers / attachment of file mentioned above and
arguments on 16.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 65/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Vishal Bhardwaj, proxy counsel for
appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Sh. Pratap, proxy counsel for intervener.
Adjournment sought as main counsel for appellant is
not available due to some urgent personal difficulty.
It is made clear that further adjournment shall not be
granted and the parties are at liberty to file written
submissions.
Last and final opportunity is granted for final
arguments on 01.11.2018.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 97/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, applicant in
person.
File taken up today on an application moved on
behalf of applicant Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma for directing
the respondent to file videography and photographs of the
property in question.
Let the notice of the same be issued to the
respondent for date already fixed i.e. 14.11.2018.
Notice be given Dasti.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 795/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Pradyuman Singh, counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against the demolition order dated
10.08.2015. Application seeking condonation of delay has
been filed by the appellant.
In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is
stated that earlier the said order was challenged in appeal
no. 844/15 and the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn
on the statement of attorney of appellant on 23.05.2016.
Copy of order has been placed on record.
Ld. counsel for appellant pointed out that the order of
Hon’ble High Court dated 06.04.2018 in Writ Petition (C)
No. 7426/2015 titled as Arshad Ali Vs. MCD and states that
in view of the said order, liberty has been granted to file the
present appeal.
On perusal of the said order, nothing can be
concluded that it was brought to the knowledge of Hon’ble
High Court that the appellant has filed the appeal and has
withdrawn the same against the demolition order dated
05.08.2015. Apparently, the appeal is not maintainable.
Ld. counsel for appellant seeks adjournment to
address arguments on maintainability.
Put up this matter for consideration on 22.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 758/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Sagar Saxena with Sh. Abhishek Singh,
counsel for appellant.
An appeal under section 254 of the New Delhi
Municipal Council Act, 1994 has been filed against the show
cause notice dated 05.10.2018 passed u/s 247 of the said
act by Sh. V.K. Nimesh, Executive Engineer (EBR) of the
NDMC for demolition of premise / shop i.e. M/s Kiosk
(Popular Drinks), HPCL, Petrol Pump, Niti Marg, New Delhi
on account of unauthorized construction.
The notification u/s 253 subsection (1)(2) of NDMC
Act 1994 in favour of the undersigned is not received from
the Ministry of Home Affairs despite the orders of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi dated 09.04.2018 vide no.
1466/DSC/Gazzette/GAZ-II/MCDAT/2018 and as such the
appeal cannot be entertained by this Tribunal.
Put up this matter for awaiting notification from the
Ministry Of Home Affairs and further proceedings on
10.12.2018.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to counsel for
appellant, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 626/16 & 627/16 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dinker Kumar, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Sudesh Sharma, counsel for MCD.
It is submitted that the order dated 13.07.2018
regarding supply of necessary documents to the respondent
within two weeks was complied.
Respondent has not filed any status report in that
regard after deciding the matter.
Let the status report regarding decision of
regularization be filed on 07.02.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 159/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Anil Gera, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Reply to the application u/s 340 of Cr.PC filed. Status
report also filed.
Costs of Rs. 10,000/- will be deposited within a week.
As per the status report action was taken against the
unauthorized construction in the shape of deviations / excess
coverage against Sanctioned Building Plan dated 17.03.2009 at
ground floor of property no. 10/16, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
Vide proceedings dated 30.01.2017, show cause notice
was served upon the appellant who appeared before the AE(B)
and sought adjournment for various dates for getting the property
regularized.
Opportunities were given for that purpose but he failed to
do so. Thereafter, respondent has passed the demolition order
against the unauthorized construction on 21.08.2017. Demolition
order which was served upon the appellant was never
challenged.
Sealing show cause notice u/s 345-A of DMC Act dated
29.08.2017 was issued to the appellant. Reply was submitted by
the appellant giving details of disputes between Sh. Prakash
Gupta and Mrs. Lalita Gupta who are stated to be co-owners and
they are residing at second floor.
First floor is stated to be sealed. Appellant was given
opportunity to submit an affidavit with regard to the construction
on the ground floor is as per the Sanctioned Building Plan and
there are no deviations / excess coverage at ground floor but he
failed to do so.
AE(B), KBZ prepared a plan in which the existing
construction was super imposed on the sanction building plan
dated 17.03.2009. The said plan corroborates the contentions of
show cause notice dated 29.08.2017 and nullified the contention
of Sh. Arora (appellant) regarding his claim that there is no
deviations / excess coverage at ground floor.
A.No. 159/18 - 2 -
Appellant has submitted an explanation that on the plan
prepared by the building department in which the existing
construction was super imposed on the sanction building plan
and tried to justify his case in the light of order dated 14.10.1987
passed by LG of Delhi in the matter of MCD Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim &
Ors. but the deviations and excess coverage, in respect of which
the notice has been issued and also demolition order passed, are
not covered by the said order. Accordingly, sealing order was
passed on 01.12.2018.
Ld. counsel for appellant, at the very outset, submitted
that appellant has not challenged the demolition order as the
same was never supplied and the same was also not supplied in
the RTI enquiry.
Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that even if the
contention that the demolition order was not supplied is to be
accepted, the appellant is aware about the demolition order since
the filing of appeal since February 2018 and no steps has been
taken in that regard.
It is apparent and clear that appellant has no intention to
challenge the demolition order passed in this case.
Respondent is directed to clarify after inspection of the
property about the deviations and excess coverage.
Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that the said
exercise has already been done as is evident from the sealing
order produced / filed, yellow portion shown in the plan placed at
page no. 12/C.
In view of these facts, respondent may take action as per
law to bring the existing property within the parameters of
Sanctioned Building Plan dated 17.03.2009 and file action taken
report by next date of hearing.
Put up this matter for filing action taken report and
arguments on 03.12.2018.
Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for
compliance.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 258/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Amit Kumar, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Mikhil Sharda, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Ravi Kumar, AE(B).
Record not produced. Status report not filed on the
ground that in the appeal the property mentioned is of
village Munirka whereas notice has been issued for the
property of Malviya Nagar.
Ld. counsel for appellant pointed out that
inadvertently in the index, property has been shown as
Malviya Nagar whereas appeal has been prepared for the
property bearing no. 3/31-32, Shivalik Road, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
Respondent is directed to produce the record of
Malviya Nagar property alongwith status report on
04.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 791/18
26.10.2018 Present : Counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for EDMC.
Counsel for respondent seeks adjournment
to file status report . However, copy of written statement
in civil suit no. 723/18 regarding the same property has
been filed.
At the very outset counsel for the appellant
submits that property has been booked as per show
cause notice at ground floor whereas tin shed exists on
the first floor where no fresh construction was raised and
was erected. It is further submitted that without inspecting
the site, the impugned order has been passed and
demolition action has been taken on the ground floor and
there is no tin-shed at the roof of the ground floor as there
is Kadi-pathar.
In view of these facts and circumstances,
respondent is directed to carry out inspection of the
property booked by them in the presence of appellant on
27.11.2018 at 11.00 AM and file the status report by next
date of hearing.
Considering the submissions made at Bar
and in view of the documents placed at page no. 75 on
record which is MCD inspection report, tin-shed is
mentioned in the end of the report, respondent is
restrained from taking any coercive action in respect of
property bearing no. II/476 (old number 475) Teliwada,
Shahdara, Delhi-32, in pursuance of demolition order
dated 20.08.2018 till next date of hearing.
However, this order is subject to any other
order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court/Hon’ble High
Court in respect of the property in question.
A.No. 791/18 -2-
Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details
of construction with measurement of the existing
construction alongwith existing site plan and photographs of
the property in question within five working days, failing
which stay order granted shall deemed to be vacated.
Copy of the affidavit will be provided to
concerned AE(B) by the appellant, who shall verify whether
details of construction mentioned in the affidavit is correct or
not.
Appellant is also directed not to carry out any
addition, alteration, repair or construction and shall also not
create any third party interest in the property in question.
Put up this matter for filing of status report, record
by the respondent on 04.03.2019.
Copy of this order be given dasti.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
26.10.2018
A.No. 437/18
26.10.2018 Present : Sh. Sachin Gautam, counsel for the appellants
alongwith appellant no.1.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for the respondent.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Matter is listed for consideration of the
application for early hearing. Notice was issued and
served upon the respondent on 16.10.2018
Counsel for the respondent states that he
has no objection for early hearing.
Heard. Since the matter is already listed for
13.11.2018, there is no necessity of early hearing,
respondent is directed to file status report alongwith
entire record of the proceedings and reply of the appeal
as well as application for condonation of delay on date
fixed. Record be deposited in the Tribunal. Put up this
matter on the date already fixed i.e 13.11.2018.
In the meantime parties are directed to
maintain status-quo in respect of property bearing
no.7989-90m Kharia Mohalla, Roshnara Road, Delhi-06
in pursuance of demolition order dated 01.06.2018 till
next date of hearing.
However, this order is subject to any other
order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court/Hon’ble High
Court in respect of the property in question.
Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving
details of construction with measurement of the existing
construction alongwith existing site plan and photographs
of the property in question within five working days, failing
which stay order granted shall deemed to be vacated.
Copy of the affidavit will be provided to
concerned AE(B) by the appellant, who shall verify
whether details of construction mentioned in the affidavit
is correct or not.
A.No. 437/18 -2-
Appellant is also directed not to carry out any
addition, alteration, repair or construction and shall also not
create any third party interest in the property in question.
Copy of this order be given dasti.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
26.10.2018
A.No. 616/18
26.10.2018 Present : Sh. Shantanu Bhardwaj, counsel for the
appellant.
Sh. Vijay Tyagi, counsel for the respondent
alongwith Sh. Rakesh Rawat, Supdt, General
Branch.
Status report filed stating that Sh. Rakesh
Kumar Verma vide application dated 24.11.2017 applied
for temporary desealing of the premises which was not
considered and same was communicated to the appellant
vide letter dated 14.03.2018. Further, it is stated that no
application is pending consideration for desealing of the
property and levy of misuse charges is as per circular
dated 09.10.2018. It is further stated that as and when
appellant applied for desealing of the property same will
be considered as per circular dated 09.10.2018 as
annexure-R1 (colly).
Record produced. Same be returned for
preparing status report and will be filed on the next date
of hearing.
Ld Counsel for the appellant at the very
outset submitted that application for desealing was
moved on 22.12.2017 after obtaining necessary licence
for running activity in the property. The said application
alongwith receiving is stated to be placed at page no.28
of the paper book.
Respondent is directed to decide the said
application within two weeks. Appellant is directed to
approach the respondent to clarify for determining the
misuse charges in view of the circular annexed with the
status report. Respondent is thereafter directed to
determine the misuse charge if any and give information
to the appellant. Appellant may deposit the misuse
charges immediately.
A.No. 616/18 -2-
Put up for filing status report regarding
decision on the application/ payment of misuse charges if
any/ clarification as to whether appellant is entitled to use
the premises in view of the licence granted by the
respondent.
In case status report not filed. Dy.
Commissioner will appear in person on 14.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
26.10.2018
A.No. 1088/15,1087/15
26.10.2018 Present : None for the appellant.
Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal officer for North DMC.
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma Senior Law officer, Ms. Anju
Sharma JLO, Ms. Bindu Gehlot DD/NZ, Ms.
Kalpanan Khokhar AD/NZ for DDA.
Notice was issued to the DDA in appeal no.
1088/15 to file standard building plan which was received
in the office of DDA on 20.03.2018.
Copy of standard building plan and layout
plan of Gulabi Bagh supplied to the North DMC.
Put up this matter for filing of status report
by the North DMC/arguments on 18.04.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
26.10.2018
A.No. 276/17
26.10.2018 Present : Sh.Rudresh proxy counsel for Ms. Monica,
counsel for the appellant.
None for the SDMC.
Mohd Naushad proxy counsel for Sh. M.N.
Siddiqui for R2.
Adjournment sought as counsel for the
appellant is not available.
Put up for arguments on 19.04.2019, last
opportunity.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
26.10.2018
A.No. 867/16, 466/17
26.10.2018 Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nagina Jain/ Ms. Sudesh Sharma, counsel
for the respondent.
Status report in compliance of order dated
22.02.2018 not filed.
Counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is not in possession of site plan.
Adjournment sought on the ground that
information has been sought from Building (HQ).
Put up for filing status report in compliance
of previous order on 20.02.2019.
Interim orders, if any, to continue till next
date of hearing.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
26.10.2018
A.No. 298/15, 299/15
26.10.2018 Present : Sh.Rajeshwar Singh , counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Sudesh Sharma, counsel for the respondent.
Adjournment sought for arguments.
Put up for final arguments on 07.02.2019,
last opportunity.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
26.10.2018
A.No. 291/15
26.10.2018 Present : Ms. Pooja Yadav, proxy counsel for Sh. Anuj
Garg, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for EDMC.
Adjournment sought as counsel for the
appellant is not available.
Put up for arguments on 11.01.2019.
Both the parties are directed to file written
brief submissions not exceeding to 5 pages.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
26.10.2018
A.No. 684/17, 240/17
26.10.2018 Present : Sh.Sriniwas , counsel for the appellant.
Sh.Dharamvir Gupta counsel for the respondent.
Part arguments heard.
Both the parties are directed to file written
brief submissions not exceeding to 5 pages for perusal.
Put up for filing chain of original documents/
written submissions/remaining arguments on 30.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD
26.10.2018
A.No. 383/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Feroj Iqbal, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Sanjay Sethi, counsel for respondent
alongwith Sh. Abdul Haq, JLO and Sh. R.K.
Verma, AE(B).]
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
It is submitted by the respondent at the very out set,
that demolition order dated 12.01.2016 which was
challenged in appeal No.169/18 and 170/18 has been set
aside vide order dated 09.08.2018 and the matter was
remanded back.
As per status report, it is stated that remand back
proceedings are under process in pursuance of the common
order dated 09.08.2018. Counsel for respondent submitted
that appellant be directed to join those proceedings.
In view of the said order, ld. counsel for appellant
states that the appeal may be disposed off with the direction
to the respondent to provide the opportunity to the appellant
in the remand back proceedings going on.
On perusal of the copy of the order dated 09.08.2018
in appeal No.169/18 & 170/18, it is found that the demolition
order dated 12.01.2016 which has been challenged in this
appeal has already been set aside, therefore, this appeal be
also remanded back with the same terms and conditions
with the directions to the respondent to provide opportunity
to this appellant also to file reply as well as personal
hearing.
Appellant is directed to appear before the AE(B)
concerned on 12.11.2018 at 3.00 p.m. The AE(B) shall
provide the opportunity of submitting reply of the show
cause notice as well as personal hearing to the appellant on
which date the appellant is permitted to file reply, document
and written submissions, if any. Appellant, however shall
not seek any adjournment on any ground for personal
hearing or for filing any document or written submission or
for submitting reply of the show cause notice.
A.No. 383/18
The AE(B), concerned thereafter shall pass the
speaking order and deal with all the submissions, pleas and
the defences raised by the appellant and shall complete the
proceedings maximum preferably within two months
thereafter.
With these observations appeal is remanded back.
The appellant shall not raise any further construction in the
said property nor shall sell it or create any third party
interest in the same till the matter is decided afresh by the
AE(B) or till the period of four weeks whichever is later.
Appellant shall also not carry out any repair (except
whitewash) in this property without written permission of
AE(B) concerned.
The appeal is, thus, disposed off. The file of the
department be returned to the respondent alongwith copy of
this order. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 689/18 26.10.2018
Present : None for the appellant.
Sh. Naresh Sharma, counsel for respondent
alongwith Sh. S.P. Garg, AE(B).
Sh. Ravinder Kumar,, Zonal Revenue Officer,
from Delhi Jal Board.
Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent filed
Status report filed stating that the property could not
be inspected to verify status vis-a-viz affidavit of the
appellant 25.10.2018 because owner/occupier did not open
the door. The measurement could not be verified.
Nothing has been mentioned in the status report
regarding the contents of the appeal.
Record regarding sealing action has been produced.
Sealing show cause notice was issued on 22.06.2018. The
sealing order was passed on 03.08.2018. Sealing action
has been taken because of the unauthorized construction of
the entire third floor.
On 03.08.2018 part sealing action took place
wherein one toilet (LHS) was sealed at one point, one outer
room at one point and entire third floor terrace by affixing
one point.
Put up again during the course of the day for
clarification regarding pendency of the other appeal against
the demolition order.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No.689/18 1.25 p.m.
Present: Appellant in person.
Sh. Naresh Sharma, counsel for respondent
alongwith Sh. S.P. Garg, AE(B).
Sh. Ravinder Kumar,, Zonal Revenue Officer, from
Delhi Jal Board.
Appellant is unable to clarify regarding
pendency of the appeal against the demolition order and
submits that his counsel is not available.
Put up on 02.01.2019 for arguments. Interim
stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 982/13, 984/13 & 985/13 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Orangjeb Ali, Khan, counsel for appellant.
Notice was not taken dasti.
Copy supplied to the counsel for respondent who is
present in the court.
Respondent is directed to verify whether any
demolition action has to take place in the property or for
what purpose the property can be used or whether the
penalty / conversion charges, if any has been determined /
paid by the appellant.
In view of the heavy pendency of the matters, no
ground is made out for early hearing. Application is
accordingly dismissed.
Put up on date already fixed i.e. 05.12.2018.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 738/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Avishek Kumar, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. P.K. Pandey, AE(B).
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Status report filed stating that the present property
No.D-331, D-Block. Gali No.12, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi consists
of two part, first part consists of ground floor, first floor,
second floor and third floor while the second part consists
of ground floor, first floor and second floor.
The first part was inspected on 13.12.2016 and
unauthorized construction in the shape of ground floor, first
floor and second floor was booked. Show cause notice was
issued and served by speed post and after due process of
law demolition order was passed on 10.01.2017.
The sealing action was also initiated and order for
sealing was passed on 06.03.2017.
The demolition/sealing action program was taken on
06.04.2017 wherein one point was sealed at ground floor
and vacation notice was pasted. Further action was taken
on the property on 18.09.2017 and second floor RCC slab
was cut.
The owner applied for sanction of building plan which
was sanctioned on 21.02.2018.
The property was again inspected on 07.09.2018 and
unauthorized construction in part property has been found
to be carried out deviation against Sanctioned Building Plan
dated 21.02.2018 and show cause notice was issued and
served to the owner/builder by speed post and after due
process of law demolition order was passed on 16.10.2018.
A sealing notice was also issued on 26.09.2018.
Demolition action has been taken on first part on
13.09.2018 at third floor wherein one RCC panel / slab was
demolished at third floor and reinforcement cut with the help
of gas cutter.
A.No. 738/18 -2-
Sealing action was taken on the first part of the
property on 04.10.2018 wherein one room at first floor, one
room at second floor and one room at third floor were
sealed.
Put up again.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 738/18 1.15 p.m. 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Avishek Kumar, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. P.K. Pandey, AE(B).
Ld. counsel for appellant seeks adjournment to file
further documents including affidavit filed by the respondent
in the P.G. Cell.
Ld. counsel for respondent pointed out that the
property was initially booked when construction was raised
on 100 sq.yds. out of 200 sq.yds. plot which was booked
and the appeal was filed and the same was withdrawn by
the appellant and the earlier order attains finality.
The appellant applied under ‘Saral’ scheme and
obtained Sanctioned Building Plan and without demolishing
the earlier construction, subject matter of the earlier appeal,
further construction has been raised upon the remaining
100 sq.yds. which has been passed on 16.10.2018. It is
submitted that the said demolition order has not been
challenged in the present appeal and the appeal is against
the earlier order against which earlier appeal was filed and
as such is not maintainable.
A.No. 738/18 -3-
Counsel for appellant seeks adjournment to inspect
the record and take necessary steps against the demolition
order dated 16.10.2018 and file further documents.
Put up for arguments on maintainability of the
present appeal and further proceedings on 07.12.2018.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 744/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Zafar Abbas, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Kanta Chaudhary, counsel for respondent.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Status report filed.
As per FIR dated 22.08.2013 the property was
booked for unauthorized construction in the shape of extra
coverage / deviation in the shape of infringement of set back
shaft area and projection on municipal lane against
Sanctioned Building Plan dated 23.04.2013.
Show cause notice dated 22.08.2013 sent by speed
post. Receipt has been placed on record.
Demolition order was passed on 09.09.2013.
Sealing show cause notice dated 15.03.2017 was
issued and served by speed post. Detailed sealing order
was passed on 11.04.2017.
On 18.08.2018 two shops at ground floor were
sealed.
On 11.09.2018 demolition action took placed on the
property when steel grills alongwith stairs were demolished
and cut with the help of gas cutter from ground floor to third
floor.
Put up again.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 744/18 1.15 p.m. 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Zafar Abbas alongwith Sh. Jaiveer
Chauhan, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Kanta Chaudhary, counsel for respondent.
I have heard arguments on the application moved by
the appellant seeking condonation of delay because order
dated 09.09.2013 has been challenged and the appeal has
been filed on 05.10.2018, beyond the period of limitation.
It is stated in the application that appellant came to
know about the demolition order dated 09.09.2013 when
respondent officials came at the suit property to execute the
demolition order.
It is further stated that the property was partly
demolished on 11.09.2018 without any prior intimation or
notice in that regard.
It is further submitted that on 10.09.2018 an
application was moved by the appellant for supply of the
demolition order and the copy of the order was provided on
14.09.2018.
Ld. counsel for respondent at the very out set
submitted that even if from the admission of the appellant
the copy of the order has been received on 14.09.2018, the
appeal has been filed on 05.10.2018, again beyond the
period of limitation, which was required to be filed within six
days of the demolition order.
Regarding service of the show cause notice it is
submitted that the said show cause notice dated 22.08.2013
was sent by speed post. Original receipt of the speed post
is already placed on record.
It is, therefore, submitted that show cause notice is
deemed to have been served which was never received.
It is, therefore, argued that on all the account the
appeal is barred by limitation.
Adjournment sought to amend the application for
condonation of delay.
A.No. 744/18 1.15 p.m.
Ld. counsel for respondent pointed out that appellant
has purchased the property vide sale deed dated
12.09.2013.
Ld. counsel for appellant has pointed out various
documents qua the property in question, however, ld.
counsel for respondent submitted that in the sale deed, on
the basis of which appellant is claiming ownership, the
structure upon the land purchased has not been described
in the documents and it seems to be the case of
reconstruction of the property.
At request, put up for remaining arguments and
amendment in the application for condonation of delay on
03.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 745/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Zafar Abbas, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, proxy counsel for Ms. Kriti
Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Status report filed.
As per FIR dated 22.01.2016 the property was
booked for unauthorized construction at ground floor, first
floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor. Show cause
notice was issued on 22.01.2016 and sent by speed post.
Demolition order was passed on 17.02.2016 served by
speed post.
Demolition action took placed on 11.10.2018 one
shop at stilt sealed and one room at second floor was
sealed.
On 29.01.2018 part demolition action took place
wherein ground floor projection brick wall were demolished
and further demolition action on 30.01.2018 ground floor
RCC slab cut with gas cutter and one point sealed and top
floor and one panel cut with gas cutter and one point
sealed.
Put up again.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 745/18 1.15 p.m.
Present: Sh. Zafar Abbas alongwith Sh. Jaiveer
Chauhan, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, proxy counsel for Ms. Kriti
Aggarwal, counsel for MCD
I have heard the arguments on application moved by
the appellant seeking condonation of delay because order
dated 17.02.2016 has been challenged and the appeal has
been filed on 05.10.2018, beyond the period of limitation.
A.No. 745/18 1.15 p.m. -2-
It is stated in the application that appellant came to
know about the demolition order dated 17.02.2016 when
respondent officials came at the suit property to execute the
demolition order.
It is further stated that the property was partly
demolished on 30.01.2018 without any prior intimation or
notice in that regard.
It is further submitted that on 10.09.2018 an
application was moved by the appellant for supply of the
demolition order and the copy of the order was provided on
14.09.2018.
Ld. counsel for respondent at the very out set
submitted that even if from the admission of the appellant
the copy of the order has been received on 14.09.2018, the
appeal has been filed on 05.10.2018, again beyond the
period of limitation, which was required to be filed within six
days of the demolition order.
Regarding service of the show cause notice it is
submitted that the said show cause notice dated 22.01.2016
was sent by speed post. Original receipt of the speed post
is already placed on record.
It is, therefore, submitted that show cause notice is
deemed to have been served which was never received
back.
It is, therefore, argued that on all the account the
appeal is barred by limitation.
Adjournment sought to amend the application for
condonation of delay.
Ld. counsel for respondent pointed out that appellant
has purchased the property vide sale deed dated
12.09.2013.
A.No. 745/18 1.15 p.m. -3-
Ld. counsel for appellant has pointed out various
documents qua the property in question, however, ld.
counsel for respondent submitted that in the sale deed, on
the basis of which appellant is claiming ownership, the
structure upon the land purchased has not been described
in the documents and it seems to be the case of
reconstruction of the property.
At request, put up for remaining arguments and
amendment in the application for condonation of delay on
03.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 746/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Zafar Abbas, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Anil Mishra, counsel for respondent
alongwith Sh. P.K. Pfandey, AE(B).
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
As per FIR dated 06.04.2016 the property was
booked for unauthorized construction at ground floor, first
floor and second floor. Show cause notice was issued on
06.04.2016 sent by speed post.
Demolition order was passed on 18.04.2016 and sent
by speed post.
Show cause notice u/s 345A of the dm Act was
issued on 15.03.2017. Detailed speaking order u/s 345A
was passed on 13.04.2017. The property has been sealed
at second floor at one point.
Status report also filed stating that demolition action
could not be took place on 26.05.2018 due to non
availability of police force. However, further sealing action
took place on 18.08.2018 and one room was sealed at stilt.
Demolition action took place on 08.10.2018 wherein
staircase grill were cut with the help of gas cutter and one
room sealed in stilt.
Put up again.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No.746/18 26.10.2018 1.00 p.m.
Present : Sh. Zafar Abbas alongwith Sh. Jaiveer
Chauhan, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Anil Mishra, counsel for respondent
alongwith Sh. P.K. Pandey, AE(B).
I have heard the application moved by the appellant
seeking condonation of delay because order dated
18.04.2016 has been challenged and the appeal has been
filed on 05.10.2018, beyond the period of limitation.
It is stated in the application that show cause notice
was never given before passing the demolition order. It is
further submitted that on 10.09.2018 an application was
moved by the appellant for supply of the demolition order
and the copy of the order was provided on 14.09.2018.
Ld. counsel for respondent at the very out set
submitted that even if from the admission of the appellant
the copy of the order has been received on 14.09.2018, the
appeal has been filed on 05.10.2018, again beyond the
period of limitation, which was required to be filed within six
days of the demolition order.
Regarding service of the show cause notice it is
submitted that the said show cause notice dated 06.04.2016
was sent by speed post. Original receipt of the speed post
is already placed on record.
It is, therefore, submitted that show cause notice is
being to have been served which was never received.
It is, therefore, argued that on all the account the
appeal is barred by limitation.
Adjournment sought to amend the application for
condonation of delay.
Ld. counsel for appellant further submitted that
property is old and is having protection under Delhi Laws
(Special Provisions) Act, 2011 as the same has been
constructed before 08.02.2007 and there are various
document to show and also the status report dated
05.05.2016 filed by the MCD before P.G. Cell where it is
stated that property is old having been constructed about
12-15 years ago.
Ld. counsel for respondent pointed out that appellant
has purchased the property vide sale deed dated
17.07.2012, copy placed at page No.29 to 34 where at page
No.31 the property sold has been described as vacant plot.
Respondent is also directed to clarify regarding
status report filed before the P.G. Cell.
Put up for remaining arguments and filing status
report by the respondent on 03.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 791/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Ajay Singh proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Record produced. status report not filed.
Counsel for respondent is not available.
Put up again.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 742/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Vikalp, proxy counsel for appellant.
An application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation
of delay has been filed.
Dasti process not served. Adjournment sought to
serve the respondent.
Put up for service upon the respondent as per last
order for 15.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 10/14 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed by the respondent in respect of
property No.H-52, NDSE-I, New Delhi stating that alleged
violations have become permissible under Unified Building
Bye Laws-2016 without counting the same towards
permissible FAR and as such the same are not required to
be compounded.
In view of the status report and statement of the
appellants, the present appeal is disposed off dismissed as
withdrawn.
The file of the department, if any, be returned to the
respondent alongwith copy of this order. File be consigned
to record room.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 628/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Manu Sisodia, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Jitender Kumar, AE(B).
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Adjournment sought to file status report regarding the
demolition as well as sealing proceedings. Property is lying
sealed.
Put up for filing status report and record by the
respondent on 10.12.2018.
Copy of the demolition order and sealing order be
supplied to the appellant.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 951/17 26.10.2018
Present : None for the applicant.
Sh. Ranjeet Pandey, counsel for respondent.
The matter was listed for today as an application for
early hearing was moved, therefore, application for early
hearing is dismissed in default.
Put up on date already fixed i.e. 20.03.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 703/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Milan Tyagi, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Renu Soni, Nodal Officer for SDMC.
Nodal Officer submits that the service has been
affected at second floor whereas the service e was to be
affected on 17th floor of the Chief Law Officer Office. The
counsel has placed on record proof of the service wherein
notice has been received on 08.10.2018.
Since the service has already been affected, the
status report should have been filed and record should have
been produced.
There is an application for condonation of delay.
The respondent is directed to file reply of the said
application.
Since the appeal is barred by limitation and limitation
has to be considered, no interim relief can be granted.
Put up this matter for filing of status report. Reply of
the condonation application and record by the respondent
and arguments on 29.11.2018.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 743/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. K.K. Gupta, AE(B).
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
It is stated by the ld. counsel for respondent
alongwith copy of the petition including application for
condonation of delay has not been supplied.
Status report not filed.
Original record is stated to be attached with another
appeal as find mentioned in the order dated 10.10.2018 and
listed on 06.12.2018.
Counsel for appellant submitted that sp is seeking
condonation of delay of 347 days in the application.
Let the status report be filed and reply be also filed to
the application for condonation of delay. Original record be
attached with this case.
Put up for filing status report and reply to the
application for condonation of delay by the respondent on
06.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018
A.No. 75/18, 87/18, 88/18, 89/18, 71/18, 72/18, 73/18, 74/18, 90/18, 91/18, 92/18, 93/18 26.10.2018
Present : Sh. B.S. Mathur, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Vijay Tyagi, counsel for respondent
alongwith Sh. S.K. Katara, AE(B).
Part arguments heard.
Put up for remaining arguments on 09.01.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 26.10.2018