* #50 + #51 + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I W. P. (C) 3274/2011 0. P. GROVER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Advocate. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Arora, Advocate for MCD. AND (C) 3275/2011 YOGESH CHA.NB MITTAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Advocate. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A jay Arora, Advocate for MCD. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 13.05.2011 CM APPL No. 6881 of2011 (for exemption) in W. P. (C) 3274/2011 CM APPL No. 6884 of2011 (for exemption) in W. P. (C) 3275/2011 W.P. (C) Nos. 3274-75/2011 Page 1 of6 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified ,_- 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. W. P. (C) 3274/2011 and CM APPL No. 6880/2011 (for stay) W. P. (C) 3275/2011 and CM APPL No. 6883/2011 (for stay) 3. The prayer in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3274 of 2011 by Mr. 0. P. Grover is for quashing of notices issued under Section 349 and 435 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ('DMC Act') issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') in relation to ground floor of a property at 4/8, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter, 'the property in question'). It is stated by Mr. Grover that after getting possession of the said property, a development collaboration agreement was entered into with M/s Grover Goods Carrier, of which Mr. 0. P. Grover was one of the partners, pursuant to which he was entitled to the upper ground floor flat, while the other owner, Mr. Narinder Singh, was entitled to the first and second floor with the roof rights and rights for further construction on the terrace. 4. A similar prayer is made in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3275 of 2011 by Mr. Y ogesh Chand Mittal who states that he has purchased the second floor of the property in question from Mr. Narinder Singh. W.P. {C) Nos. 3274-75/2011 Page2of6 5. Both Petitioners state that they have filed applications for regularization of the excess area with the MCD on 23'ct November 2007 and that without considering such applications, notice for demolition has been issued .. The prayer is that a direction be issued to < the MCD to consider the Petitioners' applications for regularization. 6. Both Petitioners state that the basement in the building was sold to one Mr. Nitin Sehgal who has been running his business under the name and style of Meghna Lights System. 7. Smt. Shanti Devi, mother of Mr. 0. P. Grover, had filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4414 of 2000 for demolition of unauthorized construction on the third floor and the terrace of the building in question. A status report was filed in the said writ petition by the MCD stating that the owner had themselves started rectification of the excess coverage area. On 16th October 2000, this Court passed an order that in the event of the MCD taking action for demolition, three days notice to vacate the premises for that purpose will be given to the Petitioners who would vacate the premises for the purpose of W.P. (C) Nos. 3274-75/2011 Page3 of6 II demolition. It was further directed that "thereafter the MCD will put the Petitioner back in possession soon after the demolition is carried out within 15 days". 8. Mr. Nitin Sehgal of Meghna Lights System filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9112 of 2007 which came to be dismissed by an order dated 7th December 2007 passed by this Court. This Court noted, inter alia, that Mr. Nitin Sehgal had earlier filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 886 of 2000 in which he had given an undertaking on 28th September 2000 to demolish the unauthorized construction after receipt of the site plan from the MCD. Mr. Nitin Sehgal had, however, failed to comply with the said undertaking even as on 7th December 2007. The Court noted that Mr. Nitin Sehgal had the "temerity to break open seals" which had been fixed by the MCD. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.30,000/-. Mr. Nitin Sehgal filed yet another Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3407 of 2008 which was again dismissed on 18th March 2011. It is stated that the appeal against the said judgment in LPA No. 447 of2011 has also been dismissed by the Division Bench. W.P. (C) Nos. 3274-75/2011 Page4of6 9. Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners states that neither of the Petitioners was a party to the earlier proceedings and therefore had no knowledge of their pendency or ofthe orders passed by this Court. This submission, on the face of it, is untenable. The Petitioners are claiming to be the owners of different floors of the same building. There have been site inspections ordered in both the earlier writ petitions. Mr. 0. P. Grover, and his mother, had themselves filed one of the first writ petitions. That neither of the Petitioners was aware of the on-going litigation in respect of the building in question is not believable. 10. The unauthorized construction in the form of an entire building cannot obviously be allowed to continue. In the circumstances, the MCD is justified in taking action to demolish it. Mr. Ajay Arora, learned counsel appearing on advance notice for the MCD, further informs the Court that since the entire building is contrary to the sanctioned plan and violates all building norms, the question of regularization by compounding the unauthorized constructions does not arise. W.P. (C) Nos. 3274-75/2011 Page5of6 - 11. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in these writ petitions and they are dismissed as such. dismissed. MAY 13,2011 lia W.P. (C) Nos. 3274-75/2011 " The pending applications are also S. MURALIDHAR, J Page6of6