Court dismisses plea against MCD sealing

District and Sessions Judge Sunita Gupta dismissed his plea saying the MCD had given him the concession to get the deviations from building bye-laws regularised but he did not act upon it and violated his undertaking to the civic agency by selling some portions of the property to others.

“He (Bansal) himself was seeking the concession from the MCD to carry out rectification of non-compoundable deviation as well as from the court and despite the fact that such concessions were granted to him from time to time..(he) rather violated the undertaking given by him whereby he sold the property to various other persons.

“Under the circumstances,the appeal is absolutely devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed,” the court said.

Bansal told the court that his property,situated at Bazar Sita Ram was built decades ago and had become dilapidated and on complaints by local residents,the MCD issued a notice on October 28,2007 asking him to demolish its dangerous portion.

He said after receiving the notice,he sought permission from the MCD to carry out necessary repairs and in December 2007,he started the repair work but on February 28,2008,the civic body ordered him to stop the work.

Bansal said he had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the MCD to restrain it from carrying demolition and initially an interim order was passed in his favour but the MCD issued demolition order on February 29,2008.

On June 6,2008,a part of the premises was demolished and remaining portion was sealed after which on July 3,2008,he submitted an application to MCD for regularisation along with the rectification plan,Bansal said.

He also requested for de-sealing of premises for carrying out necessary rectification and it was allowed by the MCD on November 14,2008 and a period of 30 days was granted to him. The premises were de-sealed on November 25,2008 but it was again sealed on January 7,2009 after which Bansal filed an appeal before MCD’s Appellate Tribunal which dismissed it on November 18 last year.

During adjudication of Bansal’s appeal,the MCD was asked to carry out demolition of remaining unauthorised construction as Bansal failed to carry out the rectification. Aggrieved by the tribunal’s order,Bansal moved the court and his counsel said prior to the sealing of the property,no notice was served upon him and for 10 per cent extra coverage,the entire property should not be sealed.

The MCD countered Bansal’s submissions saying he does not deserve any leniency because he did not regularise the deviations despite grant of sufficient opportunities. It added he violated the undertaking given by it to him and sold various portions of premises to others. The court dismissed Bansal’s plea saying,”All these facts show that the appellant (Bansal) did not come to the court with clean hands and in fact misused the concession granted to him by Additional Commissioner,MCD as well as the Tribunal.”