Hardeep Singh vs D.D.A. and Others

Hima Kohli, J.—The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondent No. 1/DDA and respondent No. 2/MCD to carry out demolition action in respect of the unauthorized construction already carried out by the residents of D-8, House No. 8066 and 8189, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070.

Vide order dated 17.08.2011, notice was issued to the respondents calling upon them to take into consideration the grievance of the petitioner and file a counter affidavit along with the action taken report.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 1/DDA and respondent No. 2/MCD have filed their respective counter affidavits. The counter affidavit of respondent No. 1/DDA is not on record. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/DDA states that the same was filed in the Registry only yesterday with a copy to the counsel for the petitioner. He, however, hands over a copy of the said affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 1/DDA that the building activities in the subject area are looked after by the respondent No. 2/MCD and thus, DDA has no role to play in the matter.

As regards the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2/MCD, it is submitted in the counter affidavit that the subject premises was inspected by the concerned officer of respondent No. 2/MCD and in the course of inspection, no construction activity was found to be going on in the subject premises nor was any building material found stacked at the site.

It is stated in the affidavit that as regards House No. 8066, the owner of the subject premises had carried out construction at the terrace floor in the shape of one room with toilet in accordance with the permission granted by respondent No. 2/MCD vide letter dated 20.01.2009. It is further stated that the owner of the aforesaid premises had also erected a temporary structure in the shape of a shade, which is also permissible under the policy and guidelines issued by the DDA. Copies of the sanction plan along with sanction letter dated 20.01.2009 and the DDA''s guidelines are annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure R-1. (colly.).

As for House No. 8189/D-8, Vasant Kunj, it is submitted by respondent No. 2/MCD that the owner of the subject premises had carried out construction on the terrace floor, in the shape of one room with toilet and had applied for regularization for the said construction, under the self assessment scheme under the policy/guidelines of DDA and he had also deposited regularization fee in this regard. Since the said construction was within the permissible limit under the policy of DDA, the same was regularized. A copy of the regularization plan is annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure R-2. It is further stated that the owner of the aforesaid premises had also raised a temporary construction in the shape of a shade, which the owner had himself removed and as such no action was required to be taken by respondent No. 2/MCD.

As this Court is satisfied by the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2/MCD, no further orders are required to be passed on the present petition, which is disposed of.