Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Umesh Mishra, Adv.
  • Mr. Vijay Joshi, Senior Standing Govt. Counsel with Mr. Prasanta Varma, Adv. for UOI/R-1.
  • Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Standing Counsel for R-2 with Ms. Anju Gupta, Adv.
  • Mr. Harsh Vardhan and Ms. Manishika, Advs. for R-4 to 6.
Judges
  • Gita Mittal
  • A.C.J
  • C. Hari Shankar, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Umesh Mishra, Adv.
  • Mr. Vijay Joshi, Senior Standing Govt. Counsel with Mr. Prasanta Varma, Adv. for UOI/R-1.
  • Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Standing Counsel for R-2 with Ms. Anju Gupta, Adv.
  • Mr. Harsh Vardhan and Ms. Manishika, Advs. for R-4 to 6.
Judges
  • Gita Mittal
  • A.C.J
  • C. Hari Shankar, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition was filed challenging illegal and unauthorized construction at property No. 75, Masjid Moth Village, New Delhi, which allegedly violated the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) filed a counter affidavit stating that unauthorized construction at the adjacent property No. 76 was booked in 2010, with demolition orders issued and partial demolition carried out. Despite these actions, construction of a four-storey building continued, with further demolition orders issued in 2016 and additional demolition activity reported in 2017. The petition raises concerns about the SDMC's failure to complete demolition and possible official complicity.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the construction at the specified property violated the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
  2. Whether the construction infringed the restrictions under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
  3. Whether the SDMC has failed to effectively enforce demolition orders concerning unauthorized construction.
  4. Whether there is any official complicity in allowing the unauthorized construction to continue.

Arguments of the Parties

South Delhi Municipal Corporation's Arguments

  • The SDMC issued notices and demolition orders starting in 2010 for unauthorized construction at property No. 76.
  • Partial demolition was carried out in 2010, with further demolition orders and actions in 2016 and 2017.
  • Photographs and status reports were placed on record to show token demolitions had been effected.

Petitioner's Position

  • Despite SDMC's notices and orders, a four-storey building has continued to exist, indicating failure in enforcement.
  • The ongoing construction violates both municipal and ancient monument protection laws.
  • There is an implication of official complicity due to incomplete demolition and continued unauthorized construction.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the sequence of events and found that despite the issuance of demolition notices and partial demolition actions by the SDMC, unauthorized construction of a four-storey building persisted. The court noted the SDMC’s failure to complete demolition as indicative of possible complicity by officials. The court emphasized that such construction was prohibited under both the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act. Based on these findings, the court accepted the assurance of the SDMC's counsel that demolition would be completed within two months and directed a compliance report.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition and application were disposed of on the condition that the SDMC completes demolition of the unauthorized construction within two months and files a report thereafter. The court warned that failure to comply would result in stringent action against responsible persons. This decision directly compels enforcement of municipal and heritage protection laws in the specific case but does not establish any new legal precedent.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Balbir Singh Saini Petitioner v. Archaeological Survey Of India And Ors. S

    Gita Mittal, A.C.J:— This writ petition has been filed complaining illegal and unauthorized construction in the property bearing No. 75, Masjid Moth Village, New Delhi in violation of not only the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 but also of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

    2. The counter affidavit has been filed by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation submitting that the property bearing No. 76, Masjid Moth Village, New Delhi stood booked for unauthorized construction by a notice dated 9th August, 2010 and a demolition order was passed. Pursuant thereto, demolition action was taken on “01/09/2010 at its ongoing stage and demolished columns at Ground floor”. Despite this action in 2010, the counter affidavit of the SDMC refers to demolition orders passed in 2016 with regard to the construction from the ground floor to fourth floor. The photographs have been placed by the SDMC on record showing token demolitions. In a status report dated 19 April, 2017, it is stated that on 27 March, 2017 also, certain demolition has been effected.

    3. The counter affidavit of the SDMC would show that despite notices issued in 2010, four storey building has not only been permitted but has been continuing and the SDMC is propounding untenable excuses for not completing the demolition action pursuant to its own demolition notices. Such construction could not have taken place without connivance of the officials of the SDMC. Even the fact that the demolition has not been completed would suggest complicity with the persons who have carried out the illegal construction. This is even more serious given the fact that the said construction is restricted under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

    4. An assurance is given by Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, ld. Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2 SDMC that the demolition of the entire structure shall be completed at the earliest. Let the same be complete within a period of two months from today and a report be filed in this court thereafter with advance copy to the petitioner.

    5. This writ petition and application are disposed of in the above terms.

    6. It is made clear that if the action in terms of the notices and orders of the SDMC, as noted above, is not carried out, stringent action shall be taken against the person responsible for the same.

    7. Dasti.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Balbir Singh Saini Petitioner v. Archaeological Survey Of India And Ors. S
    (Sep 13, 2017)