(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O....

A.No. 321/18 & 322/18

06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Rahul Malik , counsel for the appellant.

These appeals are against the demolition

order dated 17.09.2014 and sealing order dated

16.12.2014 which were allegedly issued against the

property bearing no. C-37 whereas property already

owned by the appellant since 2017 is bearing no. C-

38A, Shiv Park.

Ld counsel further pointed out that said notice

was served in the name of Nigam Chaudhary who

has no concern with the property in question at any

point of time. It is further stated that C-37 is

different property and is existing on the spot but

place of the same is not known to the counsel for

the appellant.

Ld counsel for the appellant seeks

adjournment to file the chain of the documents of

the property which were handed over to the

appellant by the previous owner Sh. Ankit Gupta.

Let the same be filed positively by the next date.

It is pointed out that the civil suit was instituted

by the appellant against the respondent wherein

status report was filed which was ambiguous and

did not relate to the property of the appellant

therefore suit was withdrawn by the appellant.

-2-

Notice of the appeal/application be issued to

the respondent through concerned Chief Law

Officer. AE (B) is directed to appear in person

alongwith entire record of the proceedings, status

report/reply of the appeal on the next date. Record

be deposited in the Tribunal immediately.

Put up on 26.07.2018. Notice be given Dasti,

as prayed.

(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.

Appellate Tribunal:MCD 06.06.2018

A.No. 762/17

06.06.2018

Present : Sh.Anuj Kr. Garg, counsel for the appellant.

Sh.K.K. Arora, counsel for the respondent.

Status report filed regarding inspection of the

premises viz-a-viz affidavit of the appellant stating

that details supplied by the appellant in the affidavit

was matched with the existing construction.

An application u/o 1 R 10 filed by one Mohd

Hanif who is present with counsels Sh.Mohd Elahi

and Ms. Dimple . Copy of the application supplied to

the appellant and respondent.

Put up for reply/arguments on the said

application/arguments on 15.11.2018.



A.No. 435/17

06.06.2018

Present : Sh.Vipin, proxy counsel for Sh. Deepak

Sharma, counsel for the appellant.

Sh. Mohit Sharma, counsel for the respondent.

Status report filed stating that regularization

application has been dismissed vide order

dated 08.02.2018 on the ground of non-

compliance of IN dated 27.12.2017 despite

service of the same upon the appellant. Copy

supplied.

Put up for final arguments on 02.11.2018.

Interim order to continue till next date.



A.No. 874/16 & 875/16

06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Himanshu Nainwal , proxy counsel for the

appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for the

respondent with Nodal officer.

Adjournment sought for arguments.

Put up for final arguments on 13.11.2018




A.No. 829/17 & 830/17

06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Ambika Rai , counsel for the appellant.

Sh.V.K. Aggarwal counsel for the respondent.

Short adjournment sought for arguments.

At request, put up for final arguments on

20.09.2018.



A.No. 56/17

06.06.2018

Present : Sh.R.P. Kaushik, counsel for the appellant.

Sh.Anil Mishra counsel for the respondent alongwith

Sh. Raj Bhushan, JLO.

Affidavit of the appellant in compliance of order dated

04.01.2018 regarding ownership of the entire property from

ground floor to fourth floor filed today. Copy supplied.

Status report also filed by the respondent which is

ambiguous and does not satisfy the requirement as was

directed to file status report as to what basis respondent has

come to the conclusion that other floors are owned by other

persons.

It is submitted that report/information was given by the

previous Assistance Engineer Sumant Singh who is under

suspension.

This is no ground for not filing the status report. In that

regard opinion are to be formed on the material basis and not

on the personal knowledge of any of the officer of the MCD.

Adjournment sought to file complete status report in

that regard.

Put up for arguments/filing of complete status report

on 05.10.2018.




A.No. 272/13

06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma & Sanjay Garg, counsel

for the appellant.

Sh. Mohit Sharma, counsel for the respondent

with Sh. Laxman Singh SVI.

Status report filed by the Assistant Director

(Vig) through Sh. Laxman Singh wherein some

more time is sought to submit the outcome of the

investigation before this Tribunal, after the approval

of Chief Vigliance Officer, EDMC.

Reply to the application u/o 7 R 14 not filed.

Some documents were filed on 06.03.2018.

Copy was not supplied. Let the copy of the same be

supplied to the respondent if not earlier supplied.

Put up for filing status report of the vigilance

report/ reply to the application u/o 7 R 14 CrPC/Final

arguments on 10.10.2018.



A.No. 426/14 & 428/14

06.06.2018

Present : Sh.Gaurav Jain , counsel for the appellant.

Sh.A. K. Jha counsel for the respondent.

Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent.

Status report filed stating that application has

been filed and letter has been issued on 30.05.2018

to the appellant to deposit the requisite fee for

processing the said application. Copy given.

Counsel for the appellant states that draft was

already submitted. However, in case same required

revalidation, same will be submitted within 15 days.

Put up for filing status report by the

respondent in that regard on 30.10.2018.



A.No. 730/15, 731/15

06.06.2018

Present : Sh.Gaurav Jain, counsel for the appellant.

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

Nagina Jain counsel for the respondent.

Adjournment sought for final arguments.




A.No. 320/16

06.06.2018

Present : Sh.Gaurav Jain, counsel for the appellant.

Sh. Anil Mishra, counsel for the respondent.

Ld counsel for the respondent

submitted that appellant has not applied and

no application has been filed in compliance of

order dated 16.02.2018. It is further submitted

that sealing has been tampered and appellant

perhaps using the tower.

Respondent was directed to take

further demolition/sealing action qua the tower

in question in case application not filed by the

appellant within the stipulated period. Further

status report not filed in this regard.

Let further status report be filed

whether the appellant is using the tower on

05.10.2018.



A.No. 387/13 & 388/13

06.06.2018

Present : Sh.Amit Sharma , counsel for the appellant.

Sh.Sandeep Manglik, counsel for the

respondent with Suresh Gaur/AE(B)

Status report filed stating that appellant

has applied for regularization on 21.12.2017

and his application is under process. In the

meantime on 02.05.2018 appellant has

applied for desealing of the property to rectify

the deviation/ unauthorized construction.

Put up for further status report/final

arguments on 02.11.2018.



A.No. 43/18

06.06.2018

Present : Sh.Satender Sharma, counsel for the

appellant with Sh. Anil Verma, AR of the

appellant.

Sh.Sanjay Seth counsel for the respondent.

Adjournment sought for final arguments.




A.No. 287/18 &288/18

06.06.2018

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

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for the

respondent.

Due to heavy cause list and orders in various

matters today, no time left for dictating orders.

Put up for orders on 07.06.2018.



A.No. 1092/15 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Anuj Garg, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Raj Bhushan, JLO from EDMC alongwith

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

An application was moved for early hearing of the

matter because after dismissal of the regularization

application an appeal has been filed against the said order

which is listed on 16.08.2018.

It is further submitted that part demolition action has

already been taken on 03.05.2018. In case, respondent is

not restrained from carrying out demolition, appellant will

suffer irreparable loss and appeal filed by the appellant will

become infructuous.

Notice of the application be issued to the respondent.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD is not

present as he was out of station.

Adjournment sought on behalf of the respondent to

file reply of the application.

Put up this matter alongwith connected matter on

16.08.2018.

In the meantime, respondent is restrained from taking

any coercive action in the property of the appellant bearing

no. D-8, Plot No. d-33, Gali No. 14, Bhajanpura, Shahdara,

Delhi 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

order in respect 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 working days, failing which stay order

granted shall deemed to be vacated.

A.No. 1092/15 Copy of the affidavit will be provided to concerned

AE(B), 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 16.08.2018.

Copy of the order be given Dasti to both parties, as

prayed.



A.No. 345/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Awijit Paliwal, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Nitin Prakash, counsel for MCD.

Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.

Adjournment sought to file the reply and status report

as well as record.

Put up this matter for that purpose on 06.08.2018.



no. II/406, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 in pursuance

of demolition order dated 14.05.2018 till next date of

hearing.









Copy of the affidavit will be provided to concerned







prayed.



A.No. 327/18

06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Anshul Grover, counsel for appellant.

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

Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent filed.

Adjournment sought to produce the record and to file

status report as respondent was served only on 30.05.2018.

It is stated that the regularization application of the appellant

is pending with the respondent and IN has been issued to

which the reply is to be filed by the appellant.

Put up this matter for filing of status report and

producing record by the respondent on 11.09.2018.



no. KP-174, Pitampura, Delhi in pursuance of demolition

order dated 16.03.2018 till next date of hearing.
















prayed.



A.No. 257/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Yogender Kumar, counsel for appellant.

This is an appeal against the demolition order dated

29.03.2018 alleging unauthorized construction in the form of

deviations in original allotted structure.

Ld. Counsel pointed out that after receiving the notice

the appellant has given reply to the show cause notice on

02.04.2018 stating that the construction in the property was

done in the year 2005 by the previous owner.

It is further pointed out that in the demolition order,

nothing is mentioned what are the deviations against the

allotted structure and as such the demolition order is

ambiguous and passed in mechanical manner.

Issue notice of the appeal and application to the

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

directed to appear in person alongwith entire record of the

proceedings, status report and reply of the appeal on date

fixed.



flat no. 16 , LIG DDA Flat, Badarpur, Delhi in pursuance of

demolition order dated 29.03.2018 till next date of hearing.












A.No. 257/18 Appellant is also directed not to carry out any





Copy of the order be given Dasti to counsel for

appellant, as prayed.



A.No. 350/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Satyender Sharma, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Rajiv Garg, Nodal Officer for North DMC.

Memo of appearance of Sh. Dharamvir Gupta,

counsel for MCD filed.


25.04.2018 alleging unauthorized construction in the shape

of deviations / excess coverage against standard plan of

DDA and extended ground floor.

In the appeal, the said order has been challenged on

the ground that the documents filed by the appellant in reply

to the show cause notice was not considered where it was

alleged that the construction was prior to 2007 and

appellant is paying the house tax of the said entire property

since 2007 and the property is protected under Delhi Laws

(Special Provisions) Act, 2011.

Ld. Counsel for appellant has placed on record rent

agreement dated 19.12.2005 between appellant and tenant

a bank manager where the details of the property is

mentioned in the offer of premises for officer’s residence in

column 15.

Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that the structure

mentioned in the said offer is the only structure existing as

on today and no new structure has been raised.

Nodal Officer of MCD without filing any Vakalatnama

and reply has submitted that these documents i.e. rent

agreement was never placed before the Quasi Judicial

Authority when hearing was given before passing the

demolition order.

However, there is no denial of the genuineness of the

documents at this stage and the respondent is at liberty to

verify the genuineness or the correctness of these

documents from the bank concerned.

A.No. 350/18



no. 158-A, Pocket-GH-2, Ankur Apartment, Pashchim Vihar,

New Delhi in pursuance of demolition order dated

25.04.2018 till next date of hearing.















Put up this matter for filing of status report and

producing record by the respondent on 10.10.2018.


prayed.



A.No. 352/18 06.06.2018






25.04.2018 whereas unauthorized construction in the shape

of deviations against standard DDA plan, changing the size

of bathroom and kitchen in open courtyard covering by tin

shed.

It is stated in the appeal of the appellant who is

present in the court today that he is an original allottee since

1989 and the alleged deviations which are permissible by

law is done in the year 1995 and as such the same are

protected under Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011.

Adjournment sought to file the status report.



no. 159-B, Pocket-GH-2, Ankur Apartment, Pashchim Vihar,














A.No. 352/18





the respondent and arguments on 10.10.2018.


prayed.



A.No. 351/18 06.06.2018






25.04.2018 whereas unauthorized construction in the shape

of deviations / excess coverage against standard DDA plan

and extended at ground floor.

It is stated in the appeal of the appellant who is

present in the court today that he is an original allottee since

1989 and the alleged deviations which are permissible by

law is done in the year 1995 and as such the same are


Adjournment sought to file the status report.



no. 157-A, Pocket-GH-2, Ankur Apartment, Pashchim Vihar,














A.No. 352/18





the respondent and arguments on 10.10.2018.


prayed.



A.No. 311/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Ajay Kumar, counsel for appellant.

This is an appeal against the sealing order dated

08.05.2017 .





fixed.

Put up this matter on 24.09.2018.



A.No. 214/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Shirish Yaduvanshi, counsel for appellant.

This is an appeal against the sealing order dated

09.11.2017.





fixed.




A.No. 643/10 06.06.2018

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

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

Status report regarding decision on regularization

application not filed.

Adjournment sought to file the same.

Put up this matter for filing of status report by the

respondent and arguments on 10.10.2018.



A.No. 182/18 06.06.2018

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

Ms. Renu Soni, Nodal Officer for SDMC.


28.06.2017 for alleged unauthorized construction at ground

floor and first floor in the property of the appellant bearing

Khasra No. 523, House no. 921, Harijan Basti, Near Water

Tank, Village Mahipalpur, Delhi.

At the very outset, it is submitted by the ld. Counsel

for appellant that notice does not pertain to the property of

the appellant because the property of the appellant as

recorded in various documents as House No. 521, Khasra

No. 921, Village Mahipalpur, Delhi.

It is further submitted that the property of the

appellant exists since 2006 and the electricity and water

meters were installed in the year 2006 and as such


Notice was served upon the respondent. Status

report not filed.

Record is produced. Let the same be deposited with

the registry of this Tribunal.

It is submitted by Nodal Officer that the concerned

AE(B) will be present on next date of hearing for clarifying

the status of the property and the anomaly as pointed out by

the appellant.

Put up this matter for filing of detailed status report

with regard to contentions and submissions of counsel for

appellant also.



house no. 521, Khasra No. 921, situated at Harijan Basti,

Near Old Water Tank, Extended Lal Dora, Village

Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 till next date of hearing.

A.No. 182/18 However, this order is subject to any other order
















prayed.



A.No. 555/12 & 139/12 06.06.2018

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 DDA in appeal

no. 139/12.

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

No. 555/12.

Sh. Kanwar Singh, Kanungo from DDA.

Sh. Raj Kumar, Kanungo from SDM Sarswati

Vihar.

On 16.02.2018, Tehsildar, SDM Sarswati Vihar has

submitted a letter dated 15.02.2018 of N.K. Engineers for

seeking additional time to carry out the demarcation on the

ground that after receiving the masavi of two villages

(Wazirpur & Sindhora Kalan) some technical discrepancy

was found The said Tehsildar further submitted that field

work of demarcation has already been done but N.K.

Engineers told that they required Masavi of village Wazipur

which might be lying in the record room.

Accordingly Incharges of Record Room Revenue

Sadar Kanungo Branch, Tis Hazari was directed to supply

the masavi of village Wazirpur and all other documents

sought by Tehsildar Saraswati Viuhar within one week as

further report is to be sent to the Hon’ble High Court

regarding proceedings of this case. The demarcation report

is ordered to be filed at least one week prior to the date

fixed i.e. 20.03.2018.

No steps have been taken by Tehsildar, Sarswati

Vihar. Sh. Raj Kumar, Kanugo appeared on behalf of SDM

Sarswati Vihar stated that the Sh. N.K. Engineers who was

engalged for carrying out demarcation has shown their

inability to do so for want of another point. There is no

satisfactory reply with regard to non compliance of the

directions dated 16.02.2018.

A.No. 555/12 & 139/12

Counsel for appellant submitted that demarcation of

the plot in question was done on the direction of this

Tribunal and thereafter field work was already completed

and the demarcation report was filed on 13.09.2012.

Ld. Counsel pointed out that the SDM/Tehsildar are

not following the directions of this Tribunal as well as

directions of the Hon’ble High Court issued in Writ Petition

(C) FNo.2717/2017 titled as Ram Kaur Vs DDA. The

Hon’ble High Court has also sought compliance of the

directions given by them on 24.03.2017.

On 10.10.2017, ld. Counsel for respondent has filed

copy of the noting whereby the approval was granted for

fresh demarcation by TSM method at the expenses of the

DDA. Accordingly the SDM concerned was directed to

conduct the demarcation on or before 06.11.2017.

As per the status report on 12.12.2017 the

demarcation through TSM Method could not be conducted

as the second point which was required to conduct the

demarcation through TSM Method could not be traced and

further the matter was fixed on 21.12.2017.

DDA/SDM was directed to file the demarcation report

on 22.12.2017.

The demarcation report was not filed on subsequent

dates.

On 04.01.2018 the Director of the DDA and SDM

Sarswati Vihar was directed to be present at the spot for the

purpose of carrying out demarcation and the matter was

adjourned for filing demarcation report and arguments on

16.02.2018.

On 16.02.2018 the report was not filed for the

reasons recorded by me in the beginning of the order.

Today no responsible officer from the DDA and from the

SDM office is present and no further status report filed

which shows that these officers are not serious about the

proceedings before this Tribunal as well as before Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi.

A.No. 555/12 & 139/12

Sh. Raj Kumar, Kanungo, SDM Saraswati Vihar

states that Massavi of Village Wazirpur was handed over to

N.K. Engineers in the month of March 2018. SDM

Saraswati Vihar, SDM Civil Lines alongwith concerned

Tehsildar are directed to appear in person and to file the

demarcation report, failing which necessary adverse orders

will be passed and the higher officers will be summoned.

Status report be sent to the Hon’ble High Court in

compliance of the Hon’ble High Court order.

Put up this matter for filing of status report by the

respondent and arguments on 11.07.2018.

Copy of the order be given Dasti to all the parties for

presenting the same before concerned SDM and Tehsildar.



A.No. 942/16 06.06.2018

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

Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.

An application has been moved for desealing of the

property for residential purpose.

Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that at this stage,

this application be considered for removal of essential

goods lying in the property in the application for desealing of

the property may be considered on regular hearing to be

fixed as early as possible.

At the request of ld. Counsel for appellant, put up this

matter for consideration and arguments on this application

on 03.07.2018.



A.No. 936/17 & 800/17 06.06.2018

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

Sh. Sanjay Sethi / Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel

for MCD.

At the request of Ld. Counsel for appellant, put up

this matter for arguments on 03.07.2018.



A.No. 268/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Amol Kokane, counsel for appellant.

File taken up today on an application for withdrawal

of the appeal.

Appellant has filed an appeal against the sealing

order and the property is already sealed and the matter is

listed for 08.06.2018.

Put up this matter alongwith connected appeal on

08.06.2018.



A.No. 385/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. O.P. Verma, counsel for appellant.


27.04.2018.





fixed. Record be deposited immediately in the Tribunal.

Put up this matter on 08.06.2018. Notice be given

Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 308/18 06.06.2018

Present : Ms. Slika, counsel for appellant.

File taken up today on an application for withdrawal

of the appeal.

Notice of the application be issued to the respondent

through its counsel Sh. V.K. Aggarwal for 07.06.2018.

Notice be given Dasti, as prayed.



M.No. 16/18 06.06.2018

Present : Appellant in person.

An application is moved for restoration of the appeal

which was dismissed on 15.12.2017.

Notice of the application be issued to the respondent

for 04.07.2018. Notice be given Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 372/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. G.R. Verma, counsel for appellant.

This is an appeal against the sealing action on

13.09.2017. No sealing notice or order placed. No proof to

show sealed premise filed.

Put up this matter for consideration / arguments on

maintainability of appeal on 08.08.2018.



A.No. 238/18 & 239/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Gurusharan Singh, counsel for appellant.

These are two appeals against the demolition and

sealing order.

In the demolition order dated 30.11.2016 the alleged

unauthorized construction is in the shape of amalgamation

of two plots i.e. 29 & 30 with excess coverage and

deviations at ground floor and first floor and entire second

floor and two rooms one hall and temporary shed at third

floor including projections on municipal land at each floor.

It is submitted that in the separate appeal by the

owner of second floor has been granted interim protection

till 20.07.2018 in appeal no. 450/17.

The appellant is the owner of the property and in

possession of ground floor and has purchased the same in

the year 2006 and the alleged construction being old prior to

2006.





fixed.



no. G-5/29-30, Ground Floor, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi till

next date of hearing.









A.No. 238/18 & 239/18













A.No. 366/18

06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Kunal Kalra, counsel for appellant alongwith

Sh. Vijay Kumar, Appellant no. 1, Sh. Sanjay

Chopra, Appellant no. 6, Sh. Harish Chander,

Appellant no. 2, Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Appellant no.

4 in person and Sh. Deepak Son of Sh. Ram

Kishan Das, Appellant no. 3.


10.05.2010 stating that the appellants are the tenants in the

property bearing no. X/2625, Gali No. 6, Raghubar Pura-2, Delhi.

It is pointed out that owner of the shops has filed an

appeal bearing no. 93/12 & 94/12 which are pending for

27.07.2018.

Ld. Counsel placed on record the order dated 08.01.2018

wherein counsel for appellant / owners of the premises / shops

has given no objection to the respondent execute the demolition

order stating that appellant cannot carry out demolition as

property was occupied by various tenants.

This Tribunal vide order dated 08.01.2018 directed the

respondent to execute the demolition order. It is submitted that

the said statement was given by the counsel for appellant

deliberately because property was occupied by the tenants and

they are regularly making the payments of the rent to the landlord

/ appellants in those appeals who duly received the same against

receipts even on today.

Ld. Counsel for appellant pointed out that appellant has

placed on record various receipts to show that the tenancy exists

much before 2006 and no unauthorized construction has been

done even by the tenants / landlord in the shops and above the

shops.

Ld. Counsel for appellant further pointed out that from the

photograph placed at page no. 149 of paper book to stress that

even from the naked eye it can be seen that the shops are very

old.

In view of the facts and circumstances, issue notice of the

appeal and application to the respondent through concerned

Chief Law Officer. AE(B) is directed to appear in person

A.No. 366/18

alongwith entire record of the proceedings, status report and

reply of the appeal on date fixed.

In the meantime, respondent is restrained from taking any

coercive action in the shops of the appellant bearing no. Shop

No. 1 measuring 10 x 8, Shop No. 2 measuring 11.2 x 8, Shop

No. 3 measuring 13.4 x 8, Shop No. 4 measuing 38 x 8, Shop No.

5 measuring 16 x 8, Shop No. 7 measuring 11.6 x 8.5, Shop No.

8 measuring 12.5 x 11 and Shop No. 9 measuring 11.2 x 5.11

situated in the property bearing no. X/2625, Gali No. 6, Raghubar

Pura-2, Delhi in pursuance of demolition order dated 10.05.2010

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 order in

respect of the property in question.

Appellants are directed to file separate affidavit with

regard to their shop giving details of construction with

measurements 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),

who shall verify whether details of construction mentioned in the

affidavit is correct or not.

Appellants are 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 27.07.2018.

Copy of the order be given Dasti to counsel for appellant,

as prayed.



A.No. 1021/17 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Prashant Bhardwaj, counsel for SDMC

alongwith Ms. Renu Soni, Nodal Officer for

SDMC and Sh. Ashok Gupta, AE(B).

File taken up today on an application moved on

behalf of the respondent to return the original record for

compliance of the order dated 28.05.2018.

Heard.

Application is allowed.

Original record filed be returned to the respondent for

compliance of the order dated 28.05.2018 to be submitted

on next date of hearing.

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

19.07.2018.



A.No. 378/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Saurabh Tiwari, counsel for appellant.

Fresh appeal filed against the demolition order dated

16.04.2018.

It is stated that possession of property in question

was handed over after litigation in the Hon’ble High Court

where a decree for possession was passed by Hon’ble High

Court vide order dated 28.03.2014 and the possession was

given in December,2016. As per the judgment of Hon’ble

High Court on record the possession of the property which

was handed over consists of 200 sq. yds. having 8 rooms,

one store room and two washrooms.

The position at present as shown in Annexure 8 is a

build up property at ground floor and first floor i.e. 82.91 sq.

mtrs. on ground floor and the same area at the first floor. At

the ground floor there are three bedrooms, kitchen, toilet,

basement, garage and public store. At the first floor there is

a big hall measuring 4.69 mtrs. x 15.76 mtrs.

This is an admitted case in the appeal that out of 200

sq. yards the property 100 sq. yards in the right side was

damaged by the unauthorized occupants and the same was

demolished by the appellant herself and 100 sq. yards is left

i.e. the remaining property. It is clear from the description

as well as in Annexure 8 that there is basement and hall at

the first floor which does not find mentioned in the Hon’ble

High Court order where possession of the 8 rooms was

handed over out of which 100 sq. yards is already

demolished.

Because of these reasons, I am not inclined to grant

ex-parte stay.

At this stage, ld. Counsel for appellant pointed out

that reply to the show cause notice dated 03.04.2018 was

duly replied vide reply dated 17.04.2018 and reply does not

find mentioned in the demolition order dated 18.04.2018.

A.No. 378/18 It is therefore, submitted that principles of natural

justice has not been followed and the demolition order has

been passed in mechanical manner without considering the

reply.

I have read the reply placed at page 34 which simply

states that property was an old house and no new

construction has been carried out, however, the said reply

seems to be contrary to the existing status of the property

as find mentioned in the site plan Annexure 8 with the

appeal and as recorded earlier by me.

Ld. Counsel for appellant further submitted that in the

vacation notice less than 12 hours were given, at least, 24

hours are required to be given and the vacation notice has

been given in the wrong name.

The notice u/s 435 of the DMC Act seeking consent

of the occupants was also issued in the name of wrong

person.

It is therefore, submitted that the property needs to

be protected for hearing of the appeal and ex-parte stay be

granted.

I have considered those points also.

In view of my earlier observations regarding existing

structure which does not tally with the property as was

received in pursuance to the decree passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi, I am not inclined to grant ex-parte stay.





fixed.


Copy of order be given Dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 198/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. Arjun Dewan, counsel for appellant.

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

Sh. A.S. Meena, AE(B).

Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.

Record produced. Let the same be deposited with

the registry of this Tribunal.

Copy of the affidavit filed by the respondent in the

Hon’ble High Court filed stating that it could be considered

as status report regarding the present appeal.

Ld. Counsel for appellant pointed out that this

affidavit has been filed by the respondent in the Hon’ble

High Court on 21.05.2018 when the matter was heard by

the Hon’ble High Court and all the points raised by the

respondent regarding maintainability of the petition and the

action against the property argued by Sh. Gaurang Kanth

Ld. Counsel for respondent. On behalf of petitioner Sh.

Sanjay Jain, Ld. Senior Counsel submitted before the

Hon’ble High Court that construction on the ground and first

floor was prior to 2006 and in view of the Delhi Laws

(Special Provisions) Act the petitioners are entitled for

protection.

It was further submitted that the demolition order has

never been served upon the petitioners and service of

vacation order without service of vacation notice is bad in

law.

Ld. Counsel for respondent has stated that before the

Hon’ble High Court while disputing the contention of ld.

Counsel for appellant regarding non-service of the

demolition order dated 02.06.2016, it was also submitted

that the construction on the ground floor as well as on the

first floor was made after 2007 i.e. after the cut-off date

necessary for the protection. After considering the

arguments of both the Ld. Counsels for respondent and

A.No. 198/18

appellant the Hon’ble High Court directed the respondent

EDMC to file an affidavit placing on record the submissions

which were advanced by ld. Counsel for respondent on their

behalf and matter was listed for re-notification on

23.03.2018.

Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that copy of

affidavit which has been placed before this Tribunal has

been filed on 21.03.2018 when the matter was again

notified and thereafter on 04.05.2018 the parties were

directed to produce this order for perusal and consideration

of this Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel for respondent states that respondent

will be filing the status report also with regard to the

contention and the ground taken in the appeal.

Ld. Counsel for respondent at the very outset

submitted that no application seeking condonation of delay

in filing an appeal against the demolition order dated

02.06.2016 has been filed and as such ld. Counsel has

taken objection to the maintainability of the appeal itself.

To that contention ld. Counsel for appellant has

submitted that in view of the provisions of section 343(2) of

the DMC Act there was no necessity seeking condonation of

delay as there was no occasion for the appellant to file the

appeal against the said order unless and until it came into

their knowledge by the receiving the vacation notice and the

appellant has filed appeal within the period of limitation from

the service of vacation notice.

All these contentions will be considered by this

Tribunal when detailed status report is to be filed by the

respondent.

The matter be listed for arguments on 20.08.2018.



no. 323/1A, Block D (Old No. 229/A) Near Rehmat Masjid,

A.No. 198/18

Sangam Vihar, Delhi in pursuance of demolition order dated





















A.No. 1086/15 06.06.2018

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

alongwith appellant.

Sh. Mohit Sharma, counsel for MCD.

Ld. Counsel for respondent has already placed on

record the order of Civil Court dated 19.11.2017 and

03.11.2017.

The condonation will be heard and the matter will be

perused on 23.07.2018.



A.No. 371/18 06.06.2018

Present : Sh. A.N. Shukla, counsel for appellant.


10.01.2017 which came into the knowledge of appellant on

28.01.2017 when property was demolished.

Put up this matter for arguments on maintainability on

appeal on 23.07.2018.



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. 06.06.2018

Present :



A.No. Statement of Sh. ON SA

RO&AC




RO&AC




RO&AC




RO&AC




RO&AC




RO&AC



Date post:	17-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O....

Documents