A.No. 577/18 05.10.2018 Present : Sh. S.K. Dabas, proxy counsel for appellant. Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Anil Aggarwal, AE(B). Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed. Status report filed stating that unauthorized construction in the shape of part portion at fourth floor in continuation of previous booking file no. 3 dated 13.09.2017 has been booked vide file no. 91/C-18/B-II/UC/CLZ/2018 dated 06.07.2018. Demolition order was passed on 13.07.2018 and programme was fixed on 29.08.2018 but the action could not be taken due to shortage of time. Original record produced regarding the latest booking only i.e. dated 06.07.2018. The record of previous booking has not been produced. Ld. counsel for respondent Sh. H.R. Aggarwal submits that the previous record is not produced because the booking was only relating to the fourth floor of the property. Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD is reminded that FIR dated 06.07.2018 itself speaks that this booking is in continuation of previous booking. It appears that respondent is indirectly facilitating for extension of stay. Concerned Dy. Commissioner is directed to appear in person and take necessary administrative action against the AE(B) concerned. AE(B) concerned is directed to appear in person alongwith explanation as to how further construction is raised despite the initial booking for unauthorized construction on 13.09.2017 and why no proceedings u/s 343 of the DMC Act has been initiated regarding the said booking. Put up this matter on 23.10.2018. Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date. Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for compliance. (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
A.No. 577/18 05.10.2018
Present : Sh. S.K. Dabas, proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
Anil Aggarwal, AE(B).
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Status report filed stating that unauthorized construction in
the shape of part portion at fourth floor in continuation of previous
booking file no. 3 dated 13.09.2017 has been booked vide file no.
91/C-18/B-II/UC/CLZ/2018 dated 06.07.2018.
Demolition order was passed on 13.07.2018 and
programme was fixed on 29.08.2018 but the action could not be
taken due to shortage of time.
Original record produced regarding the latest booking only
i.e. dated 06.07.2018. The record of previous booking has not
been produced.
Ld. counsel for respondent Sh. H.R. Aggarwal submits
that the previous record is not produced because the booking
was only relating to the fourth floor of the property.
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD is reminded that FIR
dated 06.07.2018 itself speaks that this booking is in continuation
of previous booking. It appears that respondent is indirectly
facilitating for extension of stay. Concerned Dy. Commissioner is
directed to appear in person and take necessary administrative
action against the AE(B) concerned. AE(B) concerned is directed
to appear in person alongwith explanation as to how further
construction is raised despite the initial booking for unauthorized
construction on 13.09.2017 and why no proceedings u/s 343 of
the DMC Act has been initiated regarding the said booking.
Put up this matter on 23.10.2018.
Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.
Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for
compliance.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
A.No. 596/14 & 597/14 05.10.2018
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Amit Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh. Naveen
Grover, counsel for MCD / Sh. Manoj Kumar,
proxy counsel for Sh. Ashutosh Gupta,
counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Rajiv Garg,
Nodal Officer for North DMC.
None has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Since no one has appeared on behalf of the
appellant, the appeal is dismissed in default and for non-
prosecution. Respondent is at liberty to take action as per
law in pursuance of impugned order challenged herein.
File be consigned to record room.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
A.No. 238/12 05.10.2018
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for DDA alongwith Sh.
Praveen Kumar, JE(Bldg), DDA.
Status report filed stating that a letter of AR of Reliance
Communication Ltd. dated 15.01.2018 was received in the
Building Department, DDA with the subject reply in respect of
approval of height from Airport Authority of India for the Plot No.
2-3, Bhanot Trade Centre Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
The manual of Airport Authority of India was mentioned as
Annexure-B. No proof of Annexure-A & Annexure-B is available
in the building file submitted by the appellant.
The appellant was informed in that regard regarding
approval of Airport Authority of India vide communication dated
24.10.2016, 09.03.2017 and 23.10.2017 and letter dated
25.09.2018 and 08.08.2018 was sent for submitting Annexure-A
& Annexure-B.
In the end of status report it is stated that once the
documents regarding clearance of SACFA alongwith Annexure-A
& Annexure-B are submitted to the building section, then the case
of building permit of installation of mobile tower shall be
processed accordingly.
Ld. counsel for appellant seeks two months time to make
the necessary compliance as find mentioned in the status report.
The appeal is very old. In case, the appellant doesn’t take
the necessary steps as required as per the status report, the
appellant will be burdened with costs of Rs. 20,000/-.
Put up this matter for filing further status report regarding
decision on the application of the appellant on 11.12.2018.
Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for
compliance.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
A.No. 168/17 & 21/15 05.10.2018
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Manjusha Jha / Sh. V.K. Aggarwal,
counsel for MCD.
Status report filed stating that the tower was
inspected by JE(B) on 04.10.2018 and found that the same
was not dismantled by the appellant. The tower was sealed
on 04.10.2018.
Four weeks time sought by counsel for appellant to
settle the disputes with landlord.
In case, the tower is not dismantled within six weeks,
the respondent is at liberty to take action in pursuance of
impugned order challenged herein and file status report on
11.12.2018.
For the purpose of dismantling by the appellant,
respondent will deseal the property as per request made in
that regard and given the sufficient time to dismantle the
same.
Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for
compliance.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
A.No. 806/15 05.10.2018
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Subodh Kumar, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed stating that property was desealed
on 04.09.2018 and JE(B) inspected the site and found that
tower has been removed by the appellant.
In view of status report, the appeal is disposed off
and the impugned sealing order dated 04.09.2015 stands
satisfied.
File be consigned to record room.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
A.No. 320/16 05.10.2018
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. A.K. Mishra, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed stating that property was inspected on
21.09.2017 and the property does not falls in Gali No. 4,
Chauhan Bangar but the same falls in Gali No. 11, Khaddewali
Masjid, Agarbatti wali Gali, Chauhan Bangar having cellular poles
of Aircel Ltd.
The said mobile tower was erected without permission
from EDMC. Mobile tower was sealed on 15.01.2016. However,
no seal was found during the inspection.
The appeal against the order passed by Hon’ble District &
Session East District in RCA No. 157/2016 dated 10.04.2016
titled as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. Vs. EDMC is pending
before Hon’ble High Court and listed for 31.01.2019.
Ld. counsel for appellant stated that in view of the
settlement dated 30.01.2017 arrived in Hon’ble High Court, the
said appeal is not maintainable as become infructuous.
The demolition / sealing programme was fixed on
25.09.2018 and the tower was sealed at one point. However the
appellant was not using the tower. No reference file has been
submitted by the appellant till date.
Adjournment sought by the appellant to file the proof to
inform the Aircel Ltd. regarding the proceeding pending before
NCLT.
In case, the necessary steps are not taken by the
appellant within four weeks, appeal shall be dismissed for non-
prosecution and non-compliance.
Put up this matter for filing status report by the respondent
and arguments on 11.12.2018.
Copy of order be given Dasti to both parties for
compliance.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
M.No. 23/18 05.10.2018
Present : Sh. Rohit Nagpal, counsel for appellant.
An application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC alongwith
application for condonation of delay has been filed by the
appellant for restoration of appeal no. 1006/14 in respect of
misuse of property under M.C. Mehta Case. On
16.02.2015, it was observed that the last date of filing of
appeal before this Tribunal is 31.10.2013.
Ld. counsel for appellant has sought time to
approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for getting extension
of time in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Matter was
adjourned for 15.05.2015. Thereafter, appellant did not
appear and the appeal was dismissed in default and for
non-prosecution on 22.07.2016.
No permission of Hon’ble Supreme Court as was
sought to be obtained and produced before this Tribunal
has been obtained.
It is not clear that how the application for restoration
is maintainable? The delay in filing the appeal has to be
condoned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as was observed
in the above mentioned order.
Let the limited notice regarding the maintainability of
this application be issued to the respondent for 12.11.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
A.No. 780/14 & 1110/13 05.10.2018
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed stating that application for
regularization was received on 10.01.2018. Clarification
has been sought regarding deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- by M/s
Airtel Company vide G-8 receipt no. 848100 dated
16.11.2004, however, application for fresh permission has
been received from M/s Indus Towers.
Let the said clarification be done by the respondent
within two weeks.
Put up this matter for deciding the application and
filing of status report by the respondent on 11.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
A.No. 922/15 05.10.2018
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Niraj Kumar, counsel for MCD.
Status report not filed.
It is stated that draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- is prepared by
the appellant whereas Rs. 40,000/- is to be deposited.
The said amount will be deposited within two weeks.
Put up this matter for filing status report by the
respondent on 11.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
A.No. 138/14 05.10.2018
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed by the respondent stating that
application for regularization has been filed vide file dated
27.09.2018 and deposited the requisite processing fees of
Rs. 4,50,000/- on 27.09.2018 and the same is under
consideration.
Respondent is directed to file status report regarding
decision on the said application on 11.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
A.No. 785/16 05.10.2018
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Gaurav, proxy counsel for Sh. Sandeep
Kaushik, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed stating that regularization
application was filed on 25.05.2018. IN was issued on
13.06.2018. No compliance was made by the appellant
accordingly, application was rejected and communicated to
the appellant vide letter dated 21.08.2018.
No further fresh application has been received.
Respondent is at liberty to take action in pursuance
of demolition order challenged herein.
Put up this matter for filing action taken report by the
respondent on 11.12.2018.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
M.No. 1038/17 05.10.2018
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Manoj, proxy counsel for Sh. Ashutosh
Gupta, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Vinod
Bansal, AE(B).
Today, matter is listed for filing of status report /
action taken report as appeal is already dismissed as
withdrawn.
Status report filed stating that owner / occupier of the
property has applied for regularization of property on
08.03.2018. IN was issued on 24.08.2018. Due to non-
compliance of IN, regularization application was rejected on
11.09.2018. After rejection of regularization application,
demolition action was taken on 24.09.2018, 26.09.2018 ad
27.09.2018 and demolished the roof slab of ground floor,
first floor, second floor and third floor.
The property in question is uninhabitable / un-usable.
Photographs of the property also placed on record.
Respondent is directed to file further status report
with regard to remaining demolition action if any they intend
to take or the property has been completely demolished.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent on 08.01.2019.
Copy of order be given Dasti for compliance.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
A.No. 261/18, 262/18 & 263/18 05.10.2018
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. Mahender Singh, L.I.
Ms. Vinnie Sharma, counsel for Monitoring
Committee.
Sh. Mahender Singh, Licensing Inspector who is
present and filed status report singed by Administrative
Officer, Sh. Bhagat Singh.
In the status report, nothing new from the previous
status report filed on 17.01.2018.
In addition, it is simply stated that the case was sent
to EE(B), Rohini Zone for calculating the misuse charges on
24.08.2018 which was returned by JE(B) with remarks that it
was not possible to measure the sealed premises on
25.09.2018. In the meantime, the JE(B) was placed under
suspension on 28.09.2018.
For the purpose of calculating the misuse charges,
the Commissioner was empowered to deseal the property
himself, however a request is made to deseal the same for
the said purpose.
The competent authority is at liberty to deseal the
property on any day for the said purpose and reseal the
same on the same day.
Ms. Vinnie Sharma, counsel for Monitoring
Committee is present and clarified that after discussion with
the Members of Monitoring Committee, she has to submit
that such like cases are not dealt with by the Monitoring
Committee because the impugned order in this appeal has
not be passed on the directions of Monitoring Committee.
Ld. counsel for respondent also submitted that the
appeal is maintainable before this Tribunal because the
impugned order has not been passed in the direction of
Monitoring Committee. Though in this regard, the judgment
is already passed in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. UOI.
A.No. 261/18, 262/18 & 263/18 - 2 -
Respondent is directed to calculate the misuse
charges / penalty and further clarified that as to in which
area unauthorized colony / unauthorized regularized colony
/ lal dora or village abadi the property falls and for what
purpose the same was used by the appellant as per MPD-
2021 / Building byelaws 2016.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent on 16.01.2019.
Copy of order be given Dasti for compliance.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal:MCD 05.10.2018
A.No. 38/15,167/15
05.10.2018 Present : Sh. Dalip Rastogi , counsel for the appellant.
Sh.Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for the NDMC
alongwith Nodal Officer Sh. Sandeep Manglik.
Sh. Rambir Chauhan, counsel for the applicant.
Reply to the application u/o 1 R 10 filed.
Put up for arguments on the said application
and final arguments on 14.05.2019.
Interim orders, if any, to continue till next date