* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM No.7527/2010 in W.P.(C) No.10808/2009 Date of Decision: 31st May, 2010 Jaikishan Singh & Ors. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Kamal Katyan, Adv. versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi ..... Respondents Through Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Adv. with Mr. J.P. Verma, Executive Engineer in person CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) CM No.7527/2010 1. This application has been filed by the petitioners complaining that despite the clear directions made in the order dated 1st December, 2009 to the respondent to ensure that the effect of the alignment of the road should be from both shoulders and not from the side in which the applicants' house are located alone, the same has not been complied with. The petitioners complain that the respondent has demolished only the petitioners' houses and the demolition has been effected in such a manner so as to protect the houses on the other side completely. 2. Ms. Mini Pushkarna, learned counsel for the respondent has along with Shri J.P. Verma, Executive Engineer (Project)-II, Shahdara (North) Zone, MCD have been heard in response. They vehemently dispute the position urged by the petitioners. Photographs have been placed on CM No.7527/2010 in WP (C) No.11808/2009 Page No.1 record in support of the contentions of the MCD. 3. My attention has also been drawn to an order dated 13th May, 2010 passed in Contempt Case (C) No.306/2010 Chander Pal Sharma & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, MCD & Ors. wherein a similar grievance was made. The relevant extract of the order reads as follows:- “3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that while the house belonging to the petitioners has been demolished respondents have not even commenced any work from the opposite side, as directed by this Court vide order dated 1.12.2009. It is further submitted that the DDA has not only willfully violated the order of the Court but the MCD is acting in an arbitrary manner to the detriment of the petitioners. 4. Notice in this matter was issued. A short affidavit has been filed by Mr. J.P. Verma, Executive Engineer (Project)-II, Shahdara (North) Zone, MCD, wherein it has been stated that the work around the area, in question, is to be carried out in two phases. The first phase of the work has commenced from the side of the petitioner and the second phase of the work shall commence shortly as due to the present construction of the drain on the side of the petitioners houses all the water has been diverted towards the drain on the opposite side during the period of construction and, thus, it is not possible to carry out the construction of drain on both sides of the road simultaneously. 5. Counsel for the MCD, on instructions from Mr. J.P. Verma, Executive Engineer (Project)-II, Shahdara (North) Zone, MCD, who is present in Court, submits that respondents shall fully and duly comply with the orders passed by the Single Judge of this Court and the petitioners shall not be discriminated in any manner. Counsel further submits that the encroachment on the opposite side shall also be removed to ensure that the order of the Single Judge is complied with and also CM No.7527/2010 in WP (C) No.11808/2009 Page No.2 to ensure that the alignment of the road is effected from both sides and not only from the side of the petitioners. Respondents shall be bound by the statement made by the counsel in Court today.” 4. The present application has been filed by the same persons who were also petitioners in Contempt Case (C) No.306/2010. It is submitted by Ms. Pushkarna, learned counsel for the MCD on instructions from the executive engineer present in court that there is no change in the position or the statement which was recorded by the court on 13th May, 2010 and that after completion of the alignment of the drain from the side of the petitioners, the MCD would be taking steps for alignment on the other side of the road. It is stated that the tenders for completion of this portion of work have already been received and the matter is at the stage of finalisation of the work orders. 5. In view of the above statement, the present application is clearly misconceived and untenable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are being gravely prejudiced for the reason that no communication has been given by the MCD of the extent to which the demolition of their property is to take place. It is submitted by Ms. Pushkarna, learned counsel for the respondent that the MCD has clearly intimated the petitioners of the extent of their property which would require to be demolished. 7. In any case, there can possibly be no prejudice to the respondent in case they intimate the property owners of the extent to which his/her property is required to be demolished for the purposes of the present project. In view of the above position, no relief can be granted in the present CM No.7527/2010 in WP (C) No.11808/2009 Page No.3 application. The MCD shall ensure compliance with the orders dated 1st December, 2009 and 13th May, 2010. The MCD shall also remain bound by the statements made on its behalf noticed in the orders. It is further directed that the MCD shall ensure that they shall demarcate the extent to which the properties are required to be demolished for the purposes of its project and inform the property owners of the same. This application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti. GITA MITTAL, J MAY 31, 2010 aa CM No.7527/2010 in WP (C) No.11808/2009 Page No.4