NyayAI Legal Knowledge Graph โ€” Public Judgment & Act Pages (validation build, unlisted)

W.P.(C)/868/2024 of SANGEETA MALIK Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

Court
Delhi High Court
Decision date
2024-04-15
Case number
868/2024

Parties

Cites (1)

Statutes cited (2)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 868/2024

SANGEETA MALIK ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Mr. Utsav Garg and Ms. Tulnarampal, Advs. Kochar, Mr. Utsav Garg and Ms. Tulnarampal, Advs.

versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel alongwith Mr. Manoviraj Singh, Adv. for MCD. Mr. Manish Sharma and Mr. AkshitNavaney, Advs. for R-3 and 4. alongwith Mr. Manoviraj Singh, Adv. for MCD. Mr. Manish Sharma and Mr. AkshitNavaney, Advs. for R-3 and 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

23.01.2024

CM APPL. 3639/2024 (Exemption from filing legible, clear, typed and original documents)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 868/2024 & CM APPL.3638/2024 (stay)

1.The present petition assails the action on the part of MCD in sanctioning building plan and permitting the construction of building on an area of 175 sq. yards out of total plot of 500 sq. yards in property bearing No.B-219, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, as being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Master Plan of Delhi 2021 (MPD-2021) and

the Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi, 2016.

2.Mr. Manish Sharma, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4, submits that the aforesaid sanction plan granted by the respondent no.1/MCD in respect of the aforesaid portion of the property stands revoked vide order dated 18.01.2024 and notice under Section 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 has been pasted on the subject property on 22.01.2024.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid, the prayers made in the present petition do not survive. Accordingly, the present writ petition, alongwith the pending application, is disposed of.

4.Needless to say, the MCD shall duly comply with the statutory provisions, and give an opportunity of hearing to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 prior to taking any action in respect of the existing construction in the aforesaid property bearing No.B-219, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.

JANUARY 23, 2024/r

SACHIN DATTA, J