a.no. 805/18 05.04.2019 respondent has already filed...
TRANSCRIPT
A.No. 805/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. S.K. Verma, counsel for appellant
alongwith appellant.
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Respondent has already filed written submissions.
Appellant may also file written submissions within two
weeks.
Put up this matter for that purpose and arguments on
29.05.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 876/18 & 877/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Amit Vohra, counsel for appellant
alongwith appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Written submissions be filed by both parties.
Put up this matter for that purpose and final
arguments on 16.05.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 286/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Puran Chand, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed. Copy supplied.
Appellant may deposit the misuse charges or file
objections, if any.
Put up this matter for final arguments on 24.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 143/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. A.K. Singh, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Status report not filed.
Put up this matter for filing status report by the
respondent in pursuance of previous order and arguments
on 07.08.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 508/16, 509/16, 514/16 & 1129/15 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. K.K. Arora / Sh. Sanjay Sethi / Sh. S.K.
Pruthi, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
Praveen Deolia, AE(B).
Status report filed stating that regularization
application has not been filed by the appellant till date.
Ld counsel for appellant moved an application for
issuance of notice to Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
Address is mentioned in the application.
Let the notice of this application be issued to the IRP
for 07.08.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 416/16 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Ramnish Khanna, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Praveen Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed stating that permission has been
granted vide sanction / permission letter dated 08.01.2019.
Ld. counsel for appellant submitted that in view of the
sanction of tower / transmission pole in question, the sealing
order needs to be quashed.
I have also heard counsel for respondent who
submits that since the permission has been granted, the
tower / transmission pole has been regularized and the
Tribunal may pass the appropriated orders accordingly.
In view of the submissions made at bar and the
permission having been granted to the appellant vide letter
dated 08.01.2019, the impugned sealing order stands
quashed after fulfillment of the terms and conditions of
sanction letter by the appellant.
Respondent may deseal the tower in question. The
appeal is disposed of accordingly in above terms.
The file of the department, if any, be returned to the
respondent alongwith copy of this order.
File be consigned to record room.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 310/18 05.04.2019
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Raj Bhushan, Nodal Officer from EDMC.
None has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Put up this matter for filing action taken report / status
report by the respondent as there is no stay and arguments
on 31.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 35/19 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Keshav, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ranjit Pandey, counsel for MCD.
Structure stability certificate dated 16.02.2019 with
site plan filed alongwith settlement agreement dated
25.04.2010 executed before Delhi High Court Mediation
Centre by the appellant. Copy supplied.
Status report by the respondent was filed on previous
date. At the very outset, Ld. counsel for respondent
submitted that on previous date, status report was not filed
but the original record was produced.
Put up this matter for filing status report by the
respondent and final arguments on 09.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 242/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Vishrud Raj, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Jatin Sabharwal, counsel for MCD.
It is stated by counsel for respondent that costs will
be deposited within one week.
Status report signed on 21.02.2019 placed on record.
The same was received to the counsel for respondent on
previous date but he could not appear, due to some
personal difficulty.
Copy of said status report supplied to the appellant.
It is stated that entire construction of fourth floor and
fifth floor was newly constructed at that time of booking of
the property.
At the time of inspection carried out by the JE(B),
three masson (mistri) and four labours were found working.
Ground floor to third floor of the property has been shown
old and occupied in the booking itself.
Put up this matter for final arguments on 05.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 1181/15 05.04.2019
Present : Appellant in person.
Sh. Raj Bhushan, Nodal Officer from EDMC
alongwith Sh. R.K. Jain, AE(B).
Status report filed stating that property was inspected
on 11.03.2019 at 3.00 pm alongwith the appellant and it was
noticed that the second floor and third floor of the property
has been demolished completely.
However, projections on stilt, ground floor and first
floor on municipal lane have not been demolished
completely as is evident from the photographs.
Open area of shaft which was sanctioned 4.70 sq.
mtrs has been reduced to 1.08 sq. mtrs.
AE(B) states that the said area is compoundable.
Appellant may take necessary steps to bring the
property within compoundable limits.
Put up this matter for filing further status report by the
respondent and arguments on 25.07.2019.
Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for
compliance.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 933/18, 934/18, 935/18, 936/18, 937/18 & 938/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ranjit Pandey, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Ravinder, AE(B).
Status report filed stating that the respondent has
taken necessary punitive actions against the unauthorized
construction in the property under reference as the property
in question was booked thrice vide file no. (1) 534/UC/B-
II/SZ/2017 dated 16.10.2017; (2) 624/UC/B-II/SZ/2017
dated 07.12.2017 & (3) 26/UC/B-II/SZ/2018 dated
12.01.2018 on the ground of unauthorized construction, for
action under the DMC Act, 1957. Further action is under
contemplation and will be taken in due course of time as per
policy of the department.
As per record service of show cause notices issued
u/s 343/344 of the DMC Act, the same was pasted at site.
However, no proof of service by pasting is available on
record. As per record sealing show cause notice were also
not served upon the appellant.
As regards regularization of the property, the
applicant submitted an application for the same, which is
under process. With regard to explanation of the concerned
officials, show cause notices have already been issued to
them.
It is clear from the status report that various circulars
of the Commissioners have not been followed by the AE(B)
and JE(B) and photographs of pasting of show cause notice
was necessary to be taken before carrying out the
demolition proceedings and the sealing show cause notice
was also not served upon the appellant.
Once it is an admitted case of the respondent that
these procedures are not properly followed, the
Commissioner concerned is directed to take action against
the AE(B) and JE(B) for not following the circulars dated
15.04.2010 and 06.12.2016.
A.No. 933/18, 934/18, 935/18, 936/18, 937/18 & 938/18
No status report has been filed after approval of the
Commissioner as sought to be filed today in compliance of
order dated 17.01.2019.
It is further stated that regularization application of
the appellants are under process. Commissioner, SDMC is
directed to file action taken report in compliance of order
dated 17.01.2019 and further action to be taken against the
AE(B) and AE(B) for non-compliance of circulars of
Commissioner regarding service by way of pasting.
Put up this matter for arguments on interim stay
application as well as final arguments on 24.05.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 99/19, 100/19, 101/19, 102/19, 103/19 & 104/19 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Aabhar Jain, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Ravinder, AE(B).
Adjournment sought to file status report.
Put up this matter alongwith connected appeals
bearing nos. 933/18, 934/18, 935/18, 936/18, 937/18 &
938/18 for filing status report by the respondent and
arguments on 24.05.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 722/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. V.K. Arora, counsel for appellant.
Sh. K.K. Arora, counsel for MCD.
Final arguments heard.
Ld. counsel seeks adjournment to place on record
the proof of deposit of house tax regarding extra coverage
in the premises.
Let the same be filed by next date of hearing.
Put up this matter for clarifications, if any / orders on
23.04.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 552/18 05.04.2019
Present : Ms. Anusuya Chaudhary, counsel for
appellant alongwith appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. Ashish Sharma, AE(B).
Status report filed stating that penalty charges has
been calculated to the tune of Rs. 80,703/-.
Appellant may either deposit the same of file
objections to the same, if any.
Put up this matter for that purpose and arguments on
04.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 168/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Amzad Khan, proxy counsel for Sh.
Kameshwar Mishra, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Ashok Kumar, L.I. Civil Lines Zone.
Original record produced. Let the same be deposited
with the Registrar of this Tribunal.
AE(B) made a statement that the property in question
is situated in non conforming area and has been sealed on
the ground of misuse. The appellant has deposited misuse
charges amounting to Rs.46,165/- vide G-8 receipt
No.74179 dated 21.01.2019. The property does not come
under the 21960 industrial units in which Commissioner,
MCD filed the affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
M.C.Mehta vs UOI Writ Petition (C) No. 4677/1985. The
property can only be used for residential purpose only. His
statement has been recorded separately in this regard.
Arguments heard.
Put up for order /clarification, if any on 23.04.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 194/19 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. G.R. Verma, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Preetish Sabharwal, counsel for
respondent.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Status report not filed. It is stated that original record
is attached in appeal file No.699/17 Ashok Sood vs. MCD.
On perusal of the said original record attached with
appeal No.699/17, it is found that the property bearing
No.23B & 23C, DDA Flats Pkt-B, East of Kailash was
booked for unauthorized construction by way of extending of
room at first and second floor with projection over existing
Ground floor (garage) by the occupant of flat No.23B and
23C, DDA Flat. Show cause notice dated 10.08.2015
placed at page NO.11/C was issued. Owner / builder
shown to have been served by way of pasting at site. No
photograph of pasting has been placed on record.
Thereafter demolition order was passed on 18.08.2015 on
the ground that no reply was received.
Ld. counsel for respondent at the very outset pointed
out that the appeal has been filed on 02.08.2017 against the
order dated 18.08.2015, the same is barred by limitation.
He further pointed out that the impugned property was
sealed on 16.02.2017, as such knowledge of the demolition
order can be imputed from the said date even if there is
deficiency in service.
It is stated that application u/s 5 of the Limitation has
been filed which needs to be heard before passing any
interim order.
Adjournment sought to file reply of the said
application.
It is stated by the ld. counsel for appellant since the
property is lying sealed and till the appeal is decided on
merits the property needs to be protected from demolition.
A.No. 194/19 -2-
In these circumstances, since the application seeking
condonation of delay is to be disposed off, the respondent
shall maintain status quo in the property in question and will
not carry out any demolition action in pursuance of the
demolition order dated 18.08.2015 till next date of hearing.
However, this order is subject to any order passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court / Hon’ble High Court / Hon’ble
NGT about sealing and demolition in respect of the property
in question.
Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details of
construction with measurements of the existing construction
alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property
in question within five working days, failing which stay order
granted shall deemed to be vacated.
Copy of the affidavit will be provided to concerned
AE(B) by the appellant, who shall verify whether details of
construction mentioned in the affidavit is correct or not.
Appellant is also directed not to carry out any
addition, alteration, repair or construction and shall also not
create any third party interest in the property in question.
Put up this matter for filing reply of the application
seeking condonation of delay, status report, filing of the
proof of taking photographs regarding service of the show
cause notice upon the appellant and arguments on the
application as well as main appeal on of status report,
record by the respondent on 26.07.2019.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to counsel for
appellant, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 699/17 & 652/18 05.04.2019
Present : Ms. Chavi Sood counsel for appellant in
appeal No.699/17.
Sh. G.R. Verma, counsel for appellant in
appeal No.65/18.
Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for MCD / Sh. V.K.
Aggarwal, proxy counsel for Manpreet Kaur,
counsel for respondent.
Put up alongwith connected appeal bearing
No.194/19 on 26.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 115/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. A.K. Singh, counsel for appellant
alongwith Sh. Manish Kumar Singh, AR of the
appellant company.
Sh. Shivendu Gaur, counsel for respondent.
Status report filed stating the representative of the
company informed that the tower could not be dismantled
due to their dispute with the owner and they were not
allowed to be entered in the property.
AR of the appellant company made a statement that
appellant company wants to withdraw the present appeal
as the company could not dismantle the tower in question
due to dispute with the owner of the property who did not
allow entry for the purpose of dismantling and he requested
to waive the cost imposed vide order dated 10.12.2018.
His statement has been recorded separately in this regard.
In view of the statement made by the AR of the
company the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Cost imposed upon previous date is waived. The impugned
order is confirmed. Respondent is at liberty to take action
as per law and file the status report.
The file of the department, if any, be returned to the
respondent alongwith copy of this order. File be consigned
to record room.
Registrar is directed to prepare a miscellaneous for
the purpose of action taken report to be filed by the
respondent and put up on 07.08.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 868/17 05.04.2019
Present : Appellant in person.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Adjournment sought by the appellant as advocate is
not available.
Put up this matter for final arguments on 26.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 765/16 05.04.2019
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Sh. Maninder Jeet Singh, counsel for applicant
/ intervener.
Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that the affidavit
could not be filed in compliance of order dated 23.07.2018
as client is unable to come due to facture.
Let the said affidavit be filed positively within four
weeks.
Put up this matter for arguments on 26.07.2019.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 239/17 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Rahul Rajpal, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Renu Soni, Nodal Officer for SDMC.
Sh. A.K. Singh, counsel for R-2.
Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 doesn’t want to file
reply the appeal and they will only file reply to the
application seeking condonation of delay because the
appeal is highly barred by limitation.
Previous costs be deposited.
Put up this matter for filing reply within two weeks /
arguments on 24.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 901/16 & 391/18 05.04.2019
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Sanjay Sethi / Sh. Dharamvir Gupta,
counsel for MCD.
None is present on behalf of the appellant.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for final arguments on 07.08.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 744/13 & 796/13 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
It is stated that the copy of dismissal of regularization
application has not been supplied which was rejected on
11.12.2018.
Respondent is directed to supply the said copy
alongwith copy of IN.
Put up this matter for that purpose and arguments on
02.08.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 728/16 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. N. Rajput, proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh. Raj Bhushan, JLO from EDMC.
Advocates are not available today.
In the interest of justice, put up this matter for
arguments on 01.08.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
M.No. 04/17 05.04.2019
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
It is stated that reply was filed on 04.02.2019.
Advance copy was sent by post.
Put up this matter for arguments on 08.08.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 701/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. K.B. Gupta, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. Hukum Singh, AE(B).
An application for waiver of costs filed by the
respondent.
Arguments heard.
Put up this matter for clarification, if any / orders on
18.04.2019.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 920/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. R. Ramachandaran, counsel for appellant
alongwith appellant.
Sh. Sanjay Sethi / Sh. Ashutosh Gupta,
counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. P.K. Chauhan,
AE(B).
Vakalatnama of Sh. Sanjay Sethi and Sh. Ashutosh
Gupta on behalf of respondent filed.
Status report filed by the Dy. Commissioner, Rohini
Zone after approval from Commissioner.
Since it is evident from the status report that the
property of the appellant is similarly placed like the property
mentioned in Annexure-A and it is stated in the status report
that the department is contemplating actions for the
encroachment of other properties of Pocket-H, Sector-7,
Rohini in coordination with maintenance division in due
course of time.
Adjournment sought to file further action taken report
and it becomes evident from the status report that the
property of the appellant was targeted in isolation as there
was direction of the Chairman of PGC, Govt. of NCT of
Delhi.
Put up this matter for filing status report by the
respondent and arguments on 16.07.2019.
` Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 916/17. 05.04.2019
Present : Appellant in person .
File taken up today as an application for early
hearing is moved.
The appellant states that he wants to deposit the
misuse charges calculated by the respondent. He is
permitted to deposit the same and file the G-8 receipt.
Let a notice of the pre-ponement of the appeal be
issued to the respondent for 29.04.2019. Copy of order be
given dasti, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 422/17,412/17 and 413/17. 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Neeraj Bhardwaj counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD/Ms
Shefali Maghan proxy counsel for Sh. Vikas
Gupta in Appeal NO. 422/17.
Status report filed. Counsel for appellant states that
the affidavit has been deposited with the EE(B) o n
04.09.2018 which makes it clear that previous directions in
that regard were not followed.
Adjournment sought. Put up this matter for filing of
status report by the respondent and arguments on
09.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 493/16 and 769/16. 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Ikbal Husain proxy counsel for Sh. Jabbar
Hussain counsel for appellant .
Sh. Amit Kumar proxy counsel for Sh. Naveen
Grover, counsel for MCD/Sh. Dharamvir
Gupta, counsel for MCD
Adjournment sought on behalf of the appellant as
main counsel has gone Pune for personal work.
Put up the matter for arguments on 05.09.2019.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 610/17. 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi, counsel for appellant .
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Status report regarding verification could not be filed
as AE(B) could not inspect the property due to illness.
Put up for filing of status report/final arguments on
19.07.2019.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 96/18. 05.04.2019
Present : None for the appellant.
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Counsel for respondent has already filed written
submissions.
Put up for arguments, if any, by the
appellant/clarification/further proceedings on 25.07.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 118/19 and 140/17. 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. Deepak Sharma counsel for appellant .
Sh. Mohit Sharma, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Raj Bhushan, JLO from EDMC in Appeal
No. 140/17.
At request, Put up for final arguments on
12.09.2019.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 271/18. 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. K.N. Singh, counsel for appellant .
Sh. Amit Kumar proxy counsel for Sh. Naveen
Grover, counsel for MCD alongwith Shri A.K.
Jain AE(B) .
AE(B) concerned filed the status report and states
that non compoundable deviations are in the form of 4th floor
of the property. Concerned AE(B) seeks adjournment tofile
further status report to clarify the alleged non compoundable
deviations.
Let copy of the said status report be supplied to the
counsel for appellant so that he may file objection to that
status report . The copy of status report filed earlier be also
supplied to the counsel for appellant dasti.
For the purpose of measurements to be taken the
property may be desealed for the said purpose on
25.04.2019 in the presence of the appellant.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent and arguments on 06.06.2019.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 795/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. S. Hussain and Sh. Ankit Khatri, counsel
for appellant.
File taken up today as an application for early
hearing has been moved.
Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 3268/2019
has directed that petitioner shall file an application for
preponement of date May 06,2019 to an earlier date. The
ATMCD shall hear the petitioner on the same date or a date
convenient to it, but it should be before May 06, 2019 as
there is an apprehension of the petitioner with regard to the
demolition by the NDMC.
Let notice of this application be issued to the
respondent for 09.04.2019. Notice be issued dasti.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
M.No. 7/19 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. S.A. Khan, counsel for applicant /
appellant.
File taken up today as an application u/s 12 of the
contempt of court Act is moved.
Notice of the application be issued to the respondent
for 10.05.2019. Notice be issued dasti.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 534/18 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. P.K. Rawal, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Vijay Tyagi, counsel for respondent
alongwith Sh. D.K. Gupta, AE(B) conversion.
Reply filed on behalf of the respondent EDMC.
On perusal of the order dated 13.03.2019 it is found
recorded that appellant wants to deposit the conversion
charges.
Ld. counsel for appellant at the very outset submits
that there is some confusion / clarification required
regarding the deposit of the conversion charges, subject
matter of annexure-A for which permission be granted to file
detailed objection.
Heard.
In view of the submissions, the appellant is at liberty
to file the objection to the conversion charges report
annexure –A.
The application is disposed off accordingly.
Put up on date already fixed i.e. 09.05.2019.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 226/19 05.04.2019
Present : Sh. N.M. Popli, counsel for appellant.
An appeal u/s 347B of the DMC Act has been filed
with the prayer to direct the respondent to give a
reasonable opportunity of being heard while disposing of
representation / reply to show cause notice. The show
cause notice has been placed as annexure-A9.
I have asked the ld. counsel under which clause of
section 347B the present appeal has been filed.
Ld. counsel for appellant pointed out clause 347B(m)
of the DMC Act 1957.
Section 347B (m) speaks of an order directing the
sealing of unauthorized construction u/s 345A. The said
clause is re-produced as below:-
347-B (m): “An order directing the sealing of
unauthorized construction under section 345A.”
Admittedly the sealing order u/s 345A of the DMC Act
is not yet issued by the Quasi Judicial Authority and only a
show cause notice has been issued.
In view of this as well as in view of prayer in appeal,
the present appeal against the sealing show cause notice is
not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Appellant is at liberty to move the appropriate forum
after issuing of the sealing order.
Copy of order be given dasti, as prayed.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 115/18 Statement of Sh. Manish Kumar Singh, AR of the appellant company Indus Tower Ltd. ON SA
I am the authorized representative of the appellant’s company and
I have instructions to withdraw the present appeal unconditionally. The
same may be dismissed as withdrawn. I also request to waive the cost
which is imposed vide order dated 10.12.2018. The company could not
dismantle the tower in question due to dispute with the owner of the
property who did not allow entry for the purpose of dismantling.
RO&AC
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019
A.No. 168/18 Statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar, L.I. Civil Lines Zone, NDMC
ON SA
The property in question is situated in non conforming area and
has been sealed on the ground of misuse. The appellant has deposited
misuse charges amounting to Rs.46,165/- vide G-8 receipt No.74179
dated 21.01.2019. The property does not come under the 21960
industrial units in which Commissioner, MCD filed the affidavit before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta vs UOI Writ Petition (C) No.
4677/1985. The property can only be used for residential purpose only.
RO&AC
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.04.2019