$-1. ( X< IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O + W:P.(C) No. L7o5/2oLL, C.M.No.36t2/2olt (stay) & C.M. No.70BB/201 1 (for directions) KARANVEER SINGH AND ANR ..... PCtitiONCTS Through: Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. VCTSUS MCD AND ANR ..... ResPondents Through: Mr. Naval Kishore Jha, Adv. for MCD alongwith Mr. P.K. GuPta, A. E. Mr. L.S. ChaudharY, Adv. for R-2' CORAM: HON'BLE MS. ]USTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER o/o 20.09.20tt 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for quashing of order dated 09.03.2011 issued by the respondent/MCD wherein it was held that the Building bye laws do not permit for three plots to be amalgamated, as has been done by the petitioners herein. G In the said order, the request of petitioner No.1 for regularization was rejected and he was advised to convert it to the original building/plot for the same purpose for which it was allotted. The petitioners have also sought directions to.the respondent/MCD to consider their request for using plot No.755-757, Gharoli Dairy Farm, Delhi, for residential use, apart from claiming damages and compensation. w.P.(c) No. 77o5/2o77 Page 7 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Cciurt to order dated 15.03.20tL wherein his submission was recorded to the effect that there was vacancy in the post of Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal, MCD due to which he had tO approach this Court and secondly, that one of the reasons given for rejection was that the land was liable to be used only for dairy purposes, whereas the petitioners had in their possession documents showing that use/ ol the land is permitted for residential purposes also. 3. considering the fact that circumstances have changed since the date of passing of the order on 15.03 .z}t]-, inasmuch as the Appellate Tribunal, MCD is now functional on account of a Presiding officer being appointed to the said post, this Court declines to proceed further with the present Petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner be given some reasonable time to approach the Appellate Tribunal, MCD by preferring an appeal against the impugned order dated 09'03 '20LI and in the meantime, the interim order operating in favour of the petitioner be continued. 5. Having regard to'the fact that counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall approach the Appellate Tribunal, MCD against the impugned order, the present petition is disposed of with liberty w.P.(c) No.77o5/2o77 Page 2 of 3 (r' |' f, ''-\ - l \ granted to the petitioner as prayed for. It is further directed that the V> interim order dated 15.03 .2oLt directing MCD not to take any further action of demolition in respect of the subject premises shall continue to operate in favour of the petitioner for a period of three weeks during which period, the petitioners shall file their appeals and request the Appellate Tribunal, McD to consider their interim application for stay. Needless to state that the Appellate Tribunal, McD shall be at liberty to hear the application as also the appeal proposed to be filed by the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders thereon on merits' uninfluenced by the orders passed in the present petition' 6. Dasti to counsel for the parties' 7. The date fixed for 04.11.2011 shall stand cancelled. HIMA KOHLI,] SEPTEMBER 20, ZOLT 'anb' w.P.(C) No. 77o5/2o77 Page 3 of 3 'f