---i : @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + IN THE MATTER OF : PREM PRAKASH BAHL Decided on 26.09.2011 ..... Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Bansal, Advocate with Monga and Mr. Ateev Mathur, Advs. Through Mr. Ajay VCTSUS MCD CORAM X HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI t. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be'referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLL J. (Oral) i. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the vacation notice dated 2L.9.2OLL issued by the respondent/MCD in respect of the property bearing No'4165/VI, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. 2. counsel for the petitioner states that aggrieved ..... ResPondents Through : Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Maninder Acharya and Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advs. with Syed Anwar, Executive Engineer (Buif ding), City Zone and Mr. Montu Assistant Law Officer. 't1 by the Page 7 of 5 w.P.(c) 77s3/2077 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 t -*t demolition order dated 6.t2.2OO7 passed by the respondent/MCD in respect of the subject premises, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, registered as Appeal No.303/AT:MCD/2OO7 ' The aforesaid appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, vide order dated 8.4.2008, and while setting aside the demolition order dated 6.t2.2OO7, the case was remanded back to the quasi judicial authority for fresh adjudication. The respondent was directed to decide the matter within two months by passing a speaking order, to be communicated to the petitioner, and in the meantime, the petitioner Was directed ' to maintain status quo in respect of the construction, possesbion and title of the subject Premises. 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Assistant Engineer (Building), MCD City Zone, New Delhi and submitted his reply before the said officer. After considering the reply of the petitioner, ?h order dated 6.11.2008 came to be passed by the MCD (Annexure P-9). The operative para of the aforesaid order is reproduced herein below : ..'Taking into consideration the above, I am of the view that since the property in question is situated in the walled city, and further the party has already got his property registered with the corporation, in terms of clause L6.2 of MPD-2021, the property as such is exempted from any punitive action till the Special Area Building Regulations are framed for the'said Area is notified or maximum three years, whichever is earlier. Hence in view of the discussions made hereinabove, it is clear that no action is warranted qua the property in question and w.P.(c) 77s3/2077 \ " =tl Page 2 of 5 L t \ as such in view of clause 16.2 MPD-2O2L, the applicant/owner is entitled to avail the benefit as provided under clause 16(2) of MPD-2021, subject to fulfillment of the covenants made therein and since the property is situated in walled city, the present matter be kept in abeyance till the special Area . 'Building Regulations are framed for the said Area is notified or maximum three years, whichever is earlier"' 4. After passing of the aforesaid order by the MCD, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, registered as wP(c)No.1378/2OLO, praying inter a/ia that no coercive steps be taken against the premises of the petitioner till the Special Area Building Regulations are framed in terms of the MPD 2O2L It is submitted that the aforesaid writ petition came to be finally disposed of by the Division Bench, vide order dated 23'2'2OtI (Annexure p-13) noting inter a/ra the fact that a notification dated t7.t.2oL1 had been published in the Gazette, notifying the "Building Regulation for Special Area, Unauthorized Regularized Colonies and Village Abadis' IOLO." In view of the aforesaid observations, the petitioner withdrew the 'aforesaid writ Petition. 5. The petitioner was served with the aforesaid vacation notice dated 2t.g.2OL1 stating inter alia that the period of protection in accordance with the provisions of MPD 2O2L had come to an end and the demolition order was revived, and as a result, the MCD was duty bound to demolish the same. 6. Counsel for'the petitioner states that the vacation notice issued by the MCD is mis-conceived and is liable to be quashed as there is w.P.(c) 77s3/2O77 Page 3 of 5 t ^1 no demolition order that was passed by the MCD, after order dated 8.4.2008 was passed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD; 7. .This court has perused the order oateo 6.11.2008, passed by Assistant Engineer (Building), MCD City Zone, New Delhi, which reveals that instead of complying with the order of the Appellate Tribunal, MCD by passing a speaking order within the time granted, the aforesaid officer decided to keep in abeyance the matter itself till the notification of the Special Area Building Regulations for the said area or a maximum three years, whichever is. earlier. B. The contention of the counsel for the respondent/MCD that the aforesaid observations made in the order dated 6.11.2008 oughtto be treated as a demolition order is taken note of only to be rejected for the reason that when the officer passing the order dated 6'11'2008 specifically noted that the matter should be kept in abeyance, then there is no question of treating. the said observation as a demolition order' which could have followed only after revival of the matter. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances' the impugned vacation notice dated 2L.g.z}t! is set aside. However, having regard to the submission made by the learned senior Advocate appearing for the respondent/MQD that the MCD is willing to grant a hearing to the . petitioner before passing appropriate orders in terms of the earlier order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, McD on 8.4.2008, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Assistant Engineer (Building), MCD City w.P.(c) 77s3/2077 \i Page 4 of 5 I I{ .\ I Zone, New Delhi on 30.9.2OLt at 11.00 AM. 10. Apart from the reply submitted earlier, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take any additional pleas that may be available to him both, in law and facts, by making submissions before the aforesaid officer on the date and time fixed above. The submission made by the petitioner shall be duly considered, whereafter appropriate orders shall be passed by the MCD, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of conclusion of submissions, under written intimation to the petitioner. 11. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order that may be passed, he shall be at liberty to assail the same as per law. IZ. As learned Senior Advocate for the respondent/MCD states that if the orders passed after hearing the petitioner are adverse to him, no coercive action shall be taken against the subject premises for a period of six days from the date of receipt of the notice, as envisaged under the Statute, no further protection is required to be granted in favour of the petitioner. The petition is disposed of, along with the pending applications. copy of this order be given dasti, to the counsels appearing for the parties. SEPTEMBER 26, 2Ottlsk HIMA KOHLI,J w.P.(c) 77s3/2077 Page 5 of 5