Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Now North Delhi Municipal Corporation) Through Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation Dr. S. P. M. Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg New Delhi 110002. . . . . . . Respondent Date of Institution : 06.09.2013 Date of hearing arguments : 01.09.2022 Date of judgment : 23.09.2022 Appearances: Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate associate for Mr. V. K. Aggarwal for the respondent/MCD. JUDGMENT 1. An appeal under Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as "DMC Act") has been filed by the appellant seeking setting aside of order dated 19.08.2013 passed by Sh. Ashwani Sarpal, the then Ld. RCA No. 60777/2016 Sandeep Salaria vs. MCD Page No.1 of 25 ADJcumPO, Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. Tribunal') in appeal No. 259/AT/MCD/2009. 2. It is stated that the appellant, who is the coowner of 'C' type Quarter bearing No. D169, Double Storey, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi property bearing municipal no. D103, Fateh Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi110018 was served with a show cause notice dated 13.07.2009 from the respondent regarding excess coverage and unauthorized construction on the ground floor of Quarter bearing No. D169, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi by which the appellant was required to show cause within three days as to why the unauthorized construction be not demolished under Section 343 of the DMC Act. 3. It is stated that in response to the said show cause notice, the appellant vide letter dated 15.07.2009 wrote to the respondent that there is no construction in progress and only repairs / renovations have been done in the quarter; and that the Court of Sh. Vinay Singhal, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi had directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the construction by order dated 25.05.2009. It is further stated that vide order dated 22.07.2009, the demolition order was passed by the respondent holding that the reply to the show cause notice is not satisfactory, the unauthorized construction is against the building byelaws and unauthorized construction cannot be regularized. It is further stated that neither in the show cause notice nor in the demolish order, the excess coverage and the unauthorized RCA No. 60777/2016 Sandeep Salaria vs. MCD Page No.2 of 25 construction had been described / shown nor any site plan to that effect was filed. 4. It is stated that at the fag end of proceeding before the Ld. Tribunal i.e. sometimes in March, 2013 the respondent filed a site plan showing for the first time the excess coverage and unauthorized construction; and that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to file his objections to the said site plan and contest the same. It is further stated that the main challenge to the demolition order dated 22.07.2009 was that there was no unauthorized construction and only repairs and renovations had been carried out in the said quarter and even if there was any unauthorized construction, though not admitted, the same was regularizable. It is further stated that the appellant produced two office orders passed by Government of India, one by Ministry of Works and Housing dated 11.11.1983 and the other by Ministry of Urban Development, Land and Development Office (L&DO) dated 23.10.1990 showing that the construction in the front portion of the quarter could be temporarily regularized on payment of charges. It is further stated that the appellant also produced on record 98 pages of regularization register of the respondent showing that the respondent was regularizing the unauthorized constructions in the area. It is further stated that vide office order dated 13.08.2009 of L&DO which pertains to converting leasehold rights to freehold rights of the quarters in question and not in respect of legalizing the unauthorized construction in any manner. RCA No. 60777/2016 Sandeep Salaria vs. MCD Page No.3 of 25 5. It is stated that duri