Jitender & ANR. v. Ms. Navneet Mann & ANR.

$~110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 733/2024 JITENDER & ANR.

.....Petitioner Through:

Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocate versus MS. NAVNEET MANN & ANR.

.....Respondent Through:

Ms.

Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Mr. Prateek Dhir and Mr.

Shivam Takiar, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

O R D E R

% 21.11.2024 CM APPL. 67917/2024 1.

This is a disposed of matter.

2.

Petitioners now seek fresh direction to DDA as according to them, there is continuous unauthorized construction. When asked, Mr. Rana, learned counsel for applicants/petitioners submitted that earlier some unauthorized construction had been carried out on the property of the petitioners and in terms of last order passed by this Court on 16.05.2024, there was a direction that Special Task Force (STF) under the Chairmanship of Vice Chairman, DDA would take expeditious steps for the purposes of removal of unauthorized construction. The police was also asked to give requisite assistance to STF. It was also directed that such action be, preferably, carried out within a period of four months and the contempt CONT.CAS(C) 733/2024 1 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/11/2024 at 14:19:42

petition was accordingly disposed of.

3.

Now the present application has been moved.

4.

However, if one goes through the contents of the above-said application, it would become clear that the grievance of the petitioners suggest accrual of fresh cause of action. In Paragraph-5, it has been mentioned that there is some ongoing construction and co-sharers i.e. Mr. Naveen, Mr. Pradeep and Mr. Deepak are still raising construction on the subject land. It has, therefore, been prayed in the application under disposal that fresh directions be issued to DDA on account of continuing unauthorized construction.

5.

It does not seem to be a case where the demolition had not taken place. Even the photographs placed on record by the petitioners themselves would indicate that there was a demolition as some debris can still be seen lying in the area.

6.

Therefore, instead of moving the present application, if petitioners if so advised, can always file action against the fresh ongoing construction. 7.

Application is accordingly dismissed.

MANOJ JAIN, J NOVEMBER 21, 2024/dr CONT.CAS(C) 733/2024 2 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/11/2024 at 14:19:42