Mahesh Rana v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation And ORS.

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7470/2018 & CM APPLs. 28583/2018 & 31067/2018 MAHESH RANA ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms. Tatini Basu, Adv.

versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Baniwal, Adv. for SDMC.

Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC with Mr. Premsagar Pal, Advs. for R-3 & 4.

Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant, Mr. Sanket Khanna & Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, Advs. for UOI.

Mr. Anil Hooda with Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advs. for respondent.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 14.11.2018 1.

This Public Interest Litigation has been filed with the following prayer:

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to act on the complaint/s of the petitioner, thus restrain Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 from carrying out any further illegal construction, excavation and demolition on their plot of land / property bearing Property No. 296, Village Masjid Moth, New Delhi; and (b) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."

W.P.(C) 7470/2018 Page 1 of 2

2.

On notice being issued, status report has been filed by the SDMC and on a perusal of the same it is seen that the authorities of the SDMC inspected the property on 03.08.2018, went through the record and found that the property in question belongs to certain private individuals. The owner and builder had obtained online sanction of building plan vide File No.10048034 on 27.04.2018. Construction as per sanction letter 'Annexure A' has been made and construction activities are going on. 3.

The petitioner except for contending that there is an ancient temple on the land which has been demolished, no notification or statutory provision or document is brought on record based on which it can be said that the so called temple is statutorily declared as an ancient monument or a heritage one which could not be dismantled or demolished. From the photographs available, it is seen that it is a small temple constructed on a private land and it seems that the owners of the land have demolished it. 4.

Taking note of all these circumstances in the absence of there being any material available on record to show that the temple was an ancient monument or a duly notified ancient temple in accordance with any statutory requirement, indulgence into the matter on the basis of the material available on record is not called for.

5.

The writ petition is dismissed. The pending applications also stand disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO, J NOVEMBER 14, 2018/kks W.P.(C) 7470/2018 Page 2 of 2