Vaskar Saha Vs. Manish Gupta

Vaskar Saha vs Manish Gupta

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 01, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1172305

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1172305
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: V.K.Shali
Decided On: Dec 01, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vaskar Saha

Advocate Mr. Prateek Tushar Mohanty

Respondent

Manish Gupta

Advocate Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Ms. Namrata Mukim, Ms. Yoothica Pallavi

Excerpt

.....1. this is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent/sdmc on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 1.7.2014.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the order in question.3. by virtue of the said order, respondent/sdmc was directed to take action against the illegal construction of property no.b-1/173, second floor, janak puri, new delhi-110058. the grievance of the petitioner was that the owner of the aforesaid property in question has raised unauthorized construction. the respondent had booked the aforesaid property on 3.6.2014 and passed a demolition order on 26.6.2014. a work stoppage notice was also purported to have been given to the owner of the property on 12.6.2014 pursuant to which the owner of the said flat had applied through the respondent for the purpose of regularization of the alleged unauthorized construction. it has been stated in the order itself that the application of the owner of the said flat for regularization of the alleged unauthorized construction was also rejected on 26.6.2014 itself. it was assured to the court that an appropriate action will be taken against the unauthorized construction raised by the owner of the property.4. the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not carried out that assurance given to the court by removing the unauthorized construction.5. ms. mini pushkarna, the learned counsel for the respondent is present in response to an advance copy having been served and has stated that a writ petition bearing no.6857/2014 has been filed by the owner of the said flat, which is pending adjudication before this court and is listed on 23.1.2015. in the said writ petition, the owner of the said flat had prayed the court that his regularization plan, which has been filed afresh with the respondent, be considered by the respondent/mcd. accordingly, it is contended that no action for contempt is made out against the.....

Full Judgment

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Cont. Cas (C) No.853/2014 Decided on :

1. t December, 2014 VASKAR SAHA Through: …… Petitioner Mr. Prateek Tushar Mohanty, Advocate. Versus MANISH GUPTA Through: …… Respondent Ms. Mini Pushkarna, SC with Ms. Namrata Mukim & Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, Advocates for the SDMC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.

(ORAL) 1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent/SDMC on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 1.7.2014.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the order in question.

3. By virtue of the said order, respondent/SDMC was directed to take action against the illegal construction of Property No.B-1/173, Second Floor, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058. The grievance of the petitioner was that the owner of the aforesaid property in question has raised unauthorized construction. The respondent had booked the aforesaid property on 3.6.2014 and passed a demolition order on 26.6.2014. A work stoppage notice was also purported to have been given to the owner of the property on 12.6.2014 pursuant to which the owner of the said flat had applied through the respondent for the purpose of regularization of the alleged unauthorized construction. It has been stated in the order itself that the application of the owner of the said flat for regularization of the alleged unauthorized construction was also rejected on 26.6.2014 itself. It was assured to the court that an appropriate action will be taken against the unauthorized construction raised by the owner of the property.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not carried out that assurance given to the court by removing the unauthorized construction.

5. Ms. Mini Pushkarna, the learned counsel for the respondent is present in response to an advance copy having been served and has stated that a writ petition bearing No.6857/2014 has been filed by the owner of the said flat, which is pending adjudication before this court and is listed on 23.1.2015. In the said writ petition, the owner of the said flat had prayed the court that his regularization plan, which has been filed afresh with the respondent, be considered by the respondent/MCD. Accordingly, it is contended that no action for contempt is made out against the respondent.

6. I feel that there is some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. No action for contempt is called for against the respondent at this stage as action has already been taken by booking the unauthorized construction and passing a demolition order. Accordingly, the petition is totally misconceived and the same is dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J.

DECEMBER01 2014 ‘AA’

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2014 Same Parties Vaskar Saha vs Manish Gupta Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge V.K.Shali