Case Name: Sudhir Bidhuri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors
Case No.: W.P.(C) 6721/2024
Dated: May 10,2024
Quorum: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The current petition, which is of public interest, asks that respondent nos. 1 through 3 be instructed to take prompt action in order to stop respondent no. 4’s unauthorised and illegal construction at Khasra No. 22/2, District Park, Madan Pur Khadar, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi 110076. The petitioner additionally asks for the boundary wall to be taken down and the respondent no. 4’s unlawful construction at the aforementioned property to be discontinued.
The petitioner sought directions against respondent no. 4’s illegal and unauthorised construction at Khasra No. 22/2, District Park, Madan Pur Khadar, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076 in the case of Sudhir Bidhuri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. (W.P.© 6721/2024), which was filed in the Delhi High Court.
The petitioner asked that the boundary wall’s construction and dismantling be halted right away. With the cooperation of representatives from respondent nos. 1 through 3, the petitioner claimed that respondent no. 4 was building without the required permits and against sanction plans. Nonetheless, Khasra No. 22/2 is not a component of the District Park, according to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 344(2) of the DMC Act Unauthorised building activity must be immediately stopped by the police, and any workers who are on the property must leave along with any construction equipment, including tools and machinery.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
The petitioners’ counsel argued that Respondent No. 4 is allegedly engaging in unlawful and unauthorised building on government property without the required permits and in contravention of sanction plans, all while actively cooperating with respondents’ personnel, according to learned counsel for the petitioner.
According to a letter dated January 18, 2023, the SHO PS Sarita Vihar, New Delhi received from the Assistant Engineer Building Central Zone (MCD), Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, directing the SHO to take action under Section 344(2) of the DMC Act against the unauthorised construction being carried out at the aforementioned property and to immediately stop the same.
They claim that as a result, on February 25, 2023, the S.H.O. PS Sarita Vihar wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, MCD Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, alerting him to the illegal construction occurring at the aforementioned property and promising to provide the required police support whenever needed.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
Speaking on behalf of the respondents, the learned attorney argued that Learned counsel for DDA, who appears on advance notice, states that the District Park of DDA is situated at Khasra Nos.22/3 and 22/4 and Khasra No.22/2 is not a part of the District Park.
According to the learned counsel for MCD, the aforementioned letters from the Assistant Engineer and the SHO are about a different property that Mr. Hardeep owns that is located across from the property that is being complained about. He claims that at the location of the complaint, respondent no. 4 is not carrying out any unauthorised or illegal construction.
The petition has been brought because of a long-standing rivalry between the families of respondent no. 4 and the petitioner, according to learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court determined that, Since respondent no. 4 is not engaging in any unlawful or unapproved construction or encroachment on public land, the application and the current writ petition are dismissed. This is stated by the learned counsel for the DDA and MCD.
The court held that based on the petitioner’s argument and post the DDA’s official explanation were taken into consideration by the court. It’s possible that the court decided in favour of the DDA, highlighting the fact that Khasra No. 22/2 is not a component of the District Park, given the circumstances.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora
