High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/11491/2016

Amarjeet Singh v. The Commissioner ,South Delhi Municipal Corporation And ORS

2016-12-05Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur2 pages

$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11491/2016 & C.M. No.45131/2016 AMARJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. M.S. Bammi and Ms. Lalima Parashar, Advs.

versus THE COMMISSIONER ,SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Standing Counsel with Ms. Kamlesh Anand and Ms.

Yamini Mittal, Advs for respondent No. 1 & 2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

O R D E R

% 05.12.2016 The case of the petitioner is that illegal and unauthorized construction is being permitted at property bearing No. S-221/133, Gali No.s 4 & 5, S-Block, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. The case of the petitioner is that he along with respondents No. 3 & 4 had entered into a collaboration agreement sometime in December, 2015 to construct this property. Disputes had arisen. Admittedly a suit had been filed by the petitioner against private respondents i.e. respondents No. 3 & 4 which is pending before the concerned Court since October, 2016.

At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/SDMC has put his appearance. His submission is that the petitioner himself

being guilty for the illegal perpetuated by the Corporation cannot approach this Court. On this count, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a kachha plan had been handed over to him and he was under a bonafide impression that the site plan had been duly sanctioned qua this property which was not the correct and honest picture. He has been duped into this collaboration agreement. Be that as it may, further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is also noted which is to the effect that no representation to the said effect has been made before the Corporation. This petition be treated as representation on behalf of the petitioner and the same shall be answered by the respondent Corporation in accordance with law within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.

Petition disposed of.

Order dasti.

INDERMEET KAUR, J DECEMBER 05, 2016