Roop Kishore Dawar Vs. Mcd and ors

Roop Kishore Dawar vs Mcd and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 17, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/909128

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/909128
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Decided On: Jan 17, 2011
Case Number: W.P.(C) 7580/2010 & CM No.510/2011
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

[H.BILLAPPA J.] This M.F.A. is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC. against the Order dated 8.7.2010 passed on I.A.NO.2 & 3 in O.S.No.3224/2010 on the file of V Additional City Civil Judge. Bangalore, partly allowing IA 2 & 3, wherein IA No.2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 R/W Sec. 151 for T.I. and I.A.No.3 fil...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Roop Kishore Dawar

Advocate Mr. H.M. Singh; Mr. Kaushal Yadav; Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Advs.

Respondent

Mcd and ors

Advocate Mr. Mukesh Gupta; Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advs.

Excerpt

[h.billappa j.] this m.f.a. is filed under order 43 rule 1 (r) of cpc. against the order dated 8.7.2010 passed on i.a.no.2 & 3 in o.s.no.3224/2010 on the file of v additional city civil judge. bangalore, partly allowing ia 2 & 3, wherein ia no.2 filed under order 39 rules 1 & 2 r/w sec. 151 for t.i. and i.a.no.3 filed under order 39 rules 4 of cpc to vacate the exparte injunction......was granted. subsequently, vide order dated 18th december, 2010 which is now sought to be vacated, the said protection was extended till 15th january, 2011.4. the counsel for the respondent no.4 and smt. sarojini dadlani states that the appeal to the appellate tribunal (mcd) is being filed today.5. in the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:(i) unless there is any stay from the appellate tribunal (mcd), the respondent mcd to take action against the unauthorized construction in accordance with law;(ii) the petitioner shall be entitled to approach the respondent mcd if finds that no action has been taken; it in spite of the petitioner so approaching, the respondent mcd does not take action, the concerned officials of the respondent mcd shall be held liable;(iii) the respondent no.4 and smt. sarojini dadlani are directed to implead the petitioner herein as a respondent in the appeal. the petitioner shall be entitled to be heard in opposition to the appeal;(iv) needless to state that the parties shall be governed by further orders of the appellate tribunal (mcd).no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest?

1. The counsel for the contesting respondents and the MCD have appeared on advance notice and finding that the writ petition itself can be disposed of, the writ petition has been taken up for consideration. The date fixed of 14th March, 2011 is cancelled.

2. The petition was filed seeking mandamus to the respondent MCD to take action with respect to the unauthorized construction in the front portion of property No.94, National Park, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi. Notice of the petition was issued and the respondent MCD and the Police Authorities directed to have the ongoing unauthorized construction stopped and to take action with respect to the unauthorized construction already carried out.

3. The respondent No.4 and one Smt. Sarojini Dadlani (who had filed application for impleadment) filed for stay of the said order. On the said application, it was directed that their remedy is before the Appellate Tribunal (MCD) and interim protection was granted. Subsequently, vide order dated 18th December, 2010 which is now sought to be vacated, the said protection was extended till 15th January, 2011.

4. The counsel for the respondent No.4 and Smt. Sarojini Dadlani states that the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal (MCD) is being filed today.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) Unless there is any stay from the Appellate Tribunal (MCD), the respondent MCD to take action against the unauthorized construction in accordance with law;

(ii) The petitioner shall be entitled to approach the respondent MCD if finds that no action has been taken; it in spite of the petitioner so approaching, the respondent MCD does not take action, the concerned officials of the respondent MCD shall be held liable;

(iii) The respondent No.4 and Smt. Sarojini Dadlani are directed to implead the petitioner herein as a respondent in the appeal. The petitioner shall be entitled to be heard in opposition to the appeal;

(iv) Needless to state that the parties shall be governed by further orders of the Appellate Tribunal (MCD).

No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2011 Same Parties Roop Kishore Dawar vs Mcd and ors Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

Land Acquisition