VIMLA SHARMA Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order dated 20.03.2012, it was recorded that though four reliefs were sought by the petitioner in the present petition, notice was issued limited to the reliefs sought in prayer (a) and (d) alone while granting leave to the petitioner to claim damages as sought by her in prayers (b) and (c), before the appropriate forum.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states at the outset that he does not wish to press for the relief sought in prayer (a) which is for restoration of the subject flat and he seeks to confine the present petition to relief sought in prayer (d) which is for quashing of the order dated 31.12.2003 whereunder, respondents No.1 to 4/MCD had demanded demolition charges of RS.5,875/- from the petitioner.

(3.) AS per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No.1- 4/MCD, the unauthorized construction existing in the subject premises, which was in the shape of a room in the balcony, had been booked by the MCD on 04.02.2003 and a show cause notice was served upon the owner/builder of the subject premises directing the addressee to submit a reply within three days. However, the owner/builder of the subject premises failed to file a reply to the aforesaid notice to show cause as a result of which, a demolition order dated 10.02.2003 was passed by the MCD and the owner/builder was called upon to demolish the unauthorized construction pointed out in the notice to show cause within 5 days from the date of receipt of the demolition order. However, no such steps were taken by the owner/occupier to remove the unauthorized construction and consequently, the respondents tried to take demolition action on 09.04.2003 but could not do so as the premises was found to be locked. It was only then that the notice dated 09.06.2003 was issued by the MCD, informing the petitioner that due to the non-compliance of the earlier notice issued under Section 343 and 344 of the DMC Act, the MCD had intended to take demolition action in regard to the unauthorized construction in the premises. The said notice was followed by a vacation notice dated 09.06.2003 issued under Section 349 of the DMC Act. Finally, the demolition action took place on 27.12.2003 when, one room and some extended portion of the wall was demolished in the presence of the police force and thereafter, the impugned notice dated 31.12.2003 was issued by the MCD to the petitioner calling upon her to pay demolition charges of RS.5,875/- as per the provisions of DMC Act.