ISHWAR DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners have filed this petition stating that the petitioner no.1 is the owner of Front Side, measuring 40 square yards of property No.25/2, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110 018 admeasuring total 100 square yards; that some of the documents of the said portion are in the name of the petitioner no.2 and claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) Notice of the petition was issued on 26th May, 2010 and the MCD directed to file the status report. As per the report filed by the MCD the property is situated in a rehabilitation colony and has 100% coverage from the ground to the second floor and approximately 40% coverage on the third floor; that there are projections on municipal land on both sides. That the property was booked as far back as in 2003 for unauthorized construction of ground floor, first floor, second floor and part of third floor and demolition action was taken in 2007-08. It is further stated that one Devpal (who, the petitioner no.2 present in person in Court states, was the original owner of the property) had got the property regularized on 19 th March, 2008 for ground floor, first floor and part of the second floor. It is further stated that there is thus unauthorized construction on part of the second floor and third floor and with respect whereto action was to be taken. The counsel for the respondent MCD also states that the demolition action of the year 2008 was taken with respect to the property as per orders in WP(C) No.6847/2007 titled Shanker Dass Falwaria Vs. MCD. The said Shanker Dass Falwaria has been impleaded as the respondent no.5 in the present petition.

(3.) The remedy if any of the petitioners, in so far as of the threat if any of the respondent MCD to demolish the unauthorized construction, if any, in the property, is by preferring an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The counsel for the petitioners states that further regularization of the unauthorized portion is also permissible. It will be open to the petitioners to seek the said regularization also if entitled to. However, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ remedy for the reason of the availability of alternative remedy of appeal.