Smt. Nirmala Goenka Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india, 1950 - article 226--writ--removal of unauthorised construction--event of non-removal allotment would be liable to cancellation--allegation that petitioner has grabbed the land under stair cases of the block and constructed a room as a store--contention that petitioner installed only a water tank and provided a door to protect booster pump--if respondent on re-inspection find unauthorised construction or causing obstruction in common passage, he would be free to proceed in accordance with law. - - the notice also provided that in the event of non-removal of unauthorised constructions, additions, alterations, or failure to show cause, as to why they be not removed, the allotment of the petitioner of flat no.ordermanmohan sarin, j pleading have been completed.with the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.1. petitioner has come to this court, seeking quashing of final notice dated 25.6.1998, calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction, allegedly under the stair case. the notice also provided that in the event of non-removal of unauthorised constructions, additions, alterations, or failure to show cause, as to why they be not removed, the allotment of the petitioner of flat no.161, (sf), ashok vihar, phase iv (sfs), delhi would be liable to cancellation.2. an interim order was passed on 24.8.1998, whereby the respondents were restrained from taking any action on the final notice dated 25.6.1998. the said notice gives the ground as under:-'you have grabbed the land under the stair case of the block and constructed a room which is as a store.'the contention of the petitioner is that she has not constructed any room under the stair case. petitioner has denied the use of the said space as store. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only thing the petitioner has done is an installation of a water tank under the stair case, so that the water can be pumped up to the over-head tank on the second floor.this is to enable the petitioner to get adequate water supply. learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the policy of respondent which provides inter alias for the installation of water tank under the stair case as also of underground water tank in the scooter garage.3. the only controversy, which survives is that while the petitioner claims that she has installed only a water tank with a booster pump so that water can be pumped up, the respondent on the other hand contends that petitioner has covered the stair case so as to make out a room and use the space underneath as a store. petitioner claims that she was installed only a water tank with a booster pump so that water can be pumped up, the respondent on the other hand contends that petitioner has covered the stair case so as to make out a room and use the space underneath as a store. petitioner denies this and states that only a door with a lock had been fixed so as to protect the booster pump from any damage or theft. in case, the petitioner has installed only a water tank and provided a door so as to protect the booster pump, it would come within the ambit of the policy of the respondents. however, if the respondent on re-inspection find that the petitioner has in fact constructed a room under the stair case by brick wall or concrete and covering area more than what is required for the water tank or that the construction is such as is causing obstruction in the common passage, the respondent would be free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law by issuing a fresh show cause notice and requiring the petitioner to confine herself to the area, as required for installation of water tank and is permissible under dda policy. the final notice dated 25.6.1998 is quashed with directions, as aforesaid.4. the writ petition stands disposed of.

Judgment:
ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J

Pleading have been completed.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

1. Petitioner has come to this court, seeking quashing of final notice dated 25.6.1998, calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction, allegedly under the stair case. The notice also provided that in the event of non-removal of unauthorised constructions, additions, alterations, or failure to show cause, as to why they be not removed, the allotment of the petitioner of flat No.161, (SF), Ashok Vihar, Phase IV (SFS), Delhi would be liable to cancellation.

2. An interim order was passed on 24.8.1998, whereby the respondents were restrained from taking any action on the final notice dated 25.6.1998. The said notice gives the ground as under:-

'You have grabbed the land under the stair case of the block and constructed a room which is as a store.'

The contention of the petitioner is that she has not constructed any room under the stair case. Petitioner has denied the use of the said space as store. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only thing the petitioner has done is an installation of a water tank under the stair case, so that the water can be pumped up to the over-head tank on the second floor.This is to enable the petitioner to get adequate water supply. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the policy of respondent which provides inter alias for the installation of water tank under the stair case as also of underground water tank in the scooter garage.

3. The only controversy, which survives is that while the petitioner claims that she has installed only a water tank with a booster pump so that water can be pumped up, the respondent on the other hand contends that petitioner has covered the stair case so as to make out a room and use the space underneath as a store. Petitioner claims that she was installed only a water tank with a booster pump so that water can be pumped up, the respondent on the other hand contends that petitioner has covered the stair case so as to make out a room and use the space underneath as a store. Petitioner denies this and states that only a door with a lock had been fixed so as to protect the booster pump from any damage or theft. In case, the petitioner has installed only a water tank and provided a door so as to protect the booster pump, it would come within the ambit of the policy of the respondents. However, if the respondent on re-inspection find that the petitioner has in fact constructed a room under the stair case by brick wall or concrete and covering area more than what is required for the water tank or that the construction is such as is causing obstruction in the common passage, the respondent would be free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law by issuing a fresh show cause notice and requiring the petitioner to confine herself to the area, as required for installation of water tank and is permissible under DDA policy. The final notice dated 25.6.1998 is quashed with directions, as aforesaid.

4. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.