ANIL KUMAR KHURANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eight writ petitions are connected and properties are situated in the area called Pusa Road, in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioners seek an order restraining the respondents from demolishing the buildings put up on the re spective plots. Initially, we thought of hearing the entire writ petition and dispose of the writ petitions on merits because the respondents had taken notice and in one of the matters counter affidavit was also filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which was adopted by the Delhi Development Authority. The arguments were addressed by both the learned counsel and in the course of the rejoinder Mr. Lekhi submitted that he was under the impression that the arguments were heard only on the question of issuing the Rule. We made the position clear that we in * tend to hear the entire matter having regard to the general importance and the nature of the litigation, and the counsel thereafter were permitted to address us further. We have heard the matter for several days. Since the court is closing for the winter vacation and the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he may take a few more days, we thought it more proper to formally issue Rule D.B. in all these cases and post the writ petitions for hearing once again, before an appropriate Bench, without treat- ing these matters as part-heard. Consequently, we direct in all these cases issuance of Rule D.B. The respondents are permitted to file further counter affidavits if necessary within 3 weeks from today with liberty to the petitioners to file rejoinder, if any, within a week thereafter. The writ petitions shall be listed for final hearing immediately in the 'After Notice Matters' before any appropriate Bench subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 30.1.1995. Subject to further to the posting of Letters Patent Appeal filed against order dated 5.12.1994 made by Usha Mehra,J. in a few suits.

(2.) We have to consider the question of interim order to be made. The demolitions of the buildings are ordered on the ground of unauthorised construction by the builders and the user of the buildings for non-residential purposes. The main contention of the petitioners is that Delhi Municipal Corporation has no jurisdiction over the area and if at all it is Delhi Development Authority that could take action.

(3.) Admittedly, in all these cases the builders obtained sanction from the Municipal Corporation before putting up the construction. The sanctioned plan permitted putting up of two and a half floors. The sanction was obtained by the builders for putting up residential premises. This apart the respondents contend that the area is set apart as residential area. The respondents contend that the builders have filed suits against the demolition orders and recently Usha Mehra,J. by order dated 5.12.1994 vacated all the interim orders of injunction. We may also note that Letters Patent Appeal seems to have been filed but the appeal has not yet been posted. We, therefore, make it clear that any order made by us hereinafter will not be taken as a precedent for the orders to be made in the Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 5.12.1994 made in Suit No. 159/1994 etc.