TAJ MOHD Vs. MCD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNTER affidavit has not been filed by respondent No. 4/DDA despite repeated adjournments granted for the said purpose. In these circumstances, the right to file counter affidavit stands closed.

(2.) REJOINDER to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1/MCD is awaited. Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to file any rejoinder thereto.

(3.) THE stand of respondent No. 1/MCD is that the shop in question, situated at Savitri Nagar near Kali Masjid, New Delhi, was demolished during an encroachment removal drive, as it was found to have been constructed on public land. Counsel for respondent No. 1/MCD states that there were a total of four shops in the said area which were found encroaching on public land, out of which one was occupied by the petitioner. Out of the remaining three shops, another shop had been demolished, whose owner has not approached this court in a writ petition. As far as the third shop was concerned, the owner of the same had removed the encroachment on his own. In respect of the fourth shop, it is contended that the owner of the same approached this court, soon after the aforesaid two shops were demolished, by filing WP(C) No. 1153/2010 entitled 'Rashida Bano vs. MCD'. Vide order dated 6.7.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 1153/2010 (Annexure R -1 enclosed with the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1/MCD on 1.4.2011), both MCD and DDA were directed to give seven days notice to the petitioner therein, in case either agency was contemplating any action against the said shop. It is further stated that no action has yet been taken against the said shop and it is still in existence, even though the shop is admittedly an encroachment on public land.