KALTYAN SANSTHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to our directions, status report has been filed Mr. Chandhiok, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/MCD has contended that the names and details of the properties have been put on the web-site. Certain cases and instances have been cited before us where the details of unauthorized construction, premises number, remarks column with regard to the nature of unauthorized construction, the quantum of the same and the extent of the same has not been placed on the website. Commissioner of MCD to ensure that the web-site which reflects the property number and the description thereof, the same should not be done in a tighter manner. If it is found that any wrong entry has been made either in terms of the number of the property or the extent of unauthorized construction or description of the user, the person feeding the computer and the sources from where it has come, both the officials shall be personally responsible and for any incorrect information major penalty be imposed against such erring officials as it will put the innocent citizens and others to great harassment in view of strict action taken pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

(2.) Mr. Chandhiok has also contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court information to the Sub-Registrar of Assurances has been sent. However, it seems that the offices of Sub-Registrar of Assurances are not well-equipped. Therefore, a direction is issued to the Divisional Commissioner of the Govt. of NCT to be present in Court on the next date of hearing. Before coming to the Court, he must have the home work done as to how and in what manner the direction of this Court with regard to the names of owners as well as the number of the property has been reflected on the deed of conveyance and methodology adopted by Deputy Commissioners in different districts, has been carried on. It has also been stated that after the passing of the order by this Court, 1243 properties have been demolished. Certain photographs have been filed before us. We do not know on what basis these photographs have been filed. In our last order we have stated that no pick and choose policy be adopted by the MCD. We are told by Mr. Chandhiok that MGI and MG-2 have been demolished. For the last one month MCD has taken almost three weeks to demolish two properties and on the same road has sealed some other properties. Why two different yardsticks? Why the other properties have not been meted with same fate as has been done in relation to MG-I and MG-2. Deputy Commissioner of the concerned Zone is not present today. He is directed in remain present in Court on the next date of hearing. He will explain as to why different yardsticks have been adopted by him. He would also explain as has been sought to be contended by Mr. Chandhiok before us that the same could not be demolished in view of some law and order problem, as when a request was made to the Commissioner of Police and if request was made why Commissioner of Police has not provided adequate police force. Law cannot be made to dance at the tune of monocracy. It is not enough to say that one property has to be left out because its owner can gather mob and other can be demolished if he is not in position to gather some mob. Law has to be applied equally. Deputy Commissioner concerned shall file his personal affidavit with all the correspondence with the police, action taken and the discrimination in relation to other properties on the same road.

(3.) In the last order we had observed that big fish particularly those who have used the property in residential areas for commercial purposes, properties which have been built unauthorized on Government land, properties which have been constructed in Lal Dora for commercial activities, have to be demolished forthwith. It seems that in the garb of only two properties MCD has not bothered to take the direction of this Court seriously. Mr. Chandhiok has, however, assured us that that is not the intention of the MCD. We do not appreciate the lacklustre approach of the MCD. We have also stated in our last order that properties which have been built in residential areas and the same have been put for commercial use, deprive quality life to the residents of that area. The illegal shops, makeshift halls, haphazardly parked vehicles throw traffic out of gear on the narrow residential colony roads. Therefore, the MCD's drive for demolition has to direct all such unauthorized constructions carrying any kind of any commercial activity which are not permissible as per the building bye-laws in residential areas to be demolished forthwith.