WP(C) No.17800/2006 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17800/2006 &CM Nos. 14778/06 & 1198-99/07 JUGAL KISHORE LAWARIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M. C. Dhingra, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Smita Shankar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. Ms. Amita Singh, Advocate for Respondent DDA. Mr. S.M. Chugh, Advocate for Respondent No. 6. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 06.05.2009 1. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to stop the ongoing illegal construction undertaken by respondent No. 6, namely, Arya Samaj Mandir, Rajendra Park, New Delhi. It was alleged that banquet hall and rooms were being constructed for commercial use in the residential colony without sanctioned plan. 2. On 17th January, 2007, the following order was by this Court:- “ It is the admitted position that unauthorized construction on the ground floor and first floor in the form of rooms and toilets on the back side of the Temple was/is being carried out. Despite the fact that the MCD had booked the said unauthorized construction, yet no steps WP(C) No.17800/2006 Page 2 of 5 have been taken till today for removal of the said unauthorized construction. MCD will ask the temple authorities to remove unauthorised constructions within two weeks. If the unauthorised constructions are not removed within the said period, effective steps will be taken by MCD to remove all unauthorized constructions in accordance with law. Issue notice to respondent no.6 by registered A/D and also through approved courier on the petitioner taking steps within a week. Status report will be filed before the next date. Renotify on 28.2.2007. Copy of this order will be given dasti.” 3. A Special Leave Petition was filed against the said order. The Supreme Court was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 17th January, 2007. On 28th February, 2007,when the matter was listed before this Court, the counsel for the respondent Union of India (in short „UOI‟) submitted that the entire construction was unauthorized in view of Clauses- 5 and 7 of the Lease Deed. However, as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, the case was adjourned. On 16th May, 2008, Civil Appeal No. 4128 of 2008 was disposed of by the Supreme Court observing that since the order dated 17th January, 2007 was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 6, the same could not be sustained and it was accordingly set aside. The respondent No. 6 made an application for regularization to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short „MCD‟). When the matter came up before this Court on 3rd September, 2008, the MCD was directed to place on record its WP(C) No.17800/2006 Page 3 of 5 decision in respect of the application made by respondent No. 6 for regularization. 4. A status report was filed before this Court by the MCD, wherein it was stated as under (page 128 of the paper book):- “1. That on the directions of the Hon‟ble Court dt. 10.12.2008 the respondent MCD has considered the application of the respondent No.6 i.e. the President, Arya Samaj Mandir and send an Invalid Notice to him vie letter No. D/AE(B)/KBZ/2008/2041 dt.23.07.08 in which certain documents/plans were to be filed by the President, Arya Samaj Mandir but till date no compliance has been made by the respondent No. 6. Hence, the application of the respondent No. 6 has been rejected on 12.01.09 on the ground of non-compliance of the above mentioned notice and the rejection letter has been issued and served by the Competent Authority of Building Deptt. of Karol Bagh Zone vide letter No.D/AE(B)/KBZ/09/96 dt. 12.01.09. Copy of the I/N dt. 23.07.08 and copy of rejection letter dt. 12.01.09 are annexed herewith as Annexure-R-1 & II. 2. That respondent MCD has acted according to the Building Bye Laws which are mandatory provision mentioned in the DMC Act, 1957 and nothing has been done with malafide intention.” 5. With the status report, the MCD annexed its letter dated 23rd July, 2008 asking for relevant documents/plans to consider the application of respondent No. 6 for regularization and letter dated 12th January, 2007, issued by the MCD rejecting the application of regularization on the ground of non-compliance of MCD notice dated 23rd July, 2008. 6. A counter-affidavit was also filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, WP(C) No.17800/2006 Page 4 of 5 UOI and Ministry of Urban Development respectively. The stand of the UOI is that the construction undertaken by respondent No. 6 is illegal and unauthorized. The relevant portion of the said counter- affidavit of UOI is reproduced hereinbelow (page 145 para-3 of the paper book):- “3. The Respondent No. 6, Arya Samaj Mandir Authorities, was asked on 20.01.1968 to submit the Building Plans for approval and, thereafter, a reminder was also issued to them on 05.09.1968. The extension of time for the purpose of construction was granted upto 31.12.1968 vide letter dated 03.09.1968 and again the period was extended upto 31.03.1969. The Respondent No. 6 was again asked to submit the sanctioned building plan vide letter dated 30.04.1969. The said Respondent has neither submitted the sanctioned building plans for approval by the Answering Respondents nor has the respondent paid the Ground Rent till date. In this way, the entire construction in existence at the plots in question, for the reason of not having been approval by the Answering Respondents is treated as illegal and unauthorized. The Respondent No. 6 has been notified of the said breaches vide letter dated 12.04.2007. However, the Respondent No. 6 Arya Samaj Mandir, has completely neglected to abide by the mandate of law and has not complied with the lease terms.” 7. Thus, as is evident from the discussion hereinabove, both as per the MCD and the UOI, the construction undertaken by respondent NO. 6 is illegal and unauthorized. The request for regularization made by respondent No. 6 to the MCD has been rejected as the respondent No. 6 failed to comply with the MCD‟s notice dated 23rd July, 2008 and had not supplied documents and plans as asked for by the MCD. WP(C) No.17800/2006 Page 5 of 5 8. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the MCD and the Central Government are directed to initiate action in accordance with law for removal of unauthorized construction within two weeks. The MCD and the Central Government are fully within their right to initiate action in accordance with law, if the construction undertaken by respondent No. 6 is unauthorized and illegal. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above stated terms. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J May 06, 2009 sb