FRANCIS JOSEPH  Vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.

LPA 273/2020 Page 1 of 3
$~12.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on : 6th Janua ry, 2021
+ LPA 273/202 0 & C.M.No.24505/2020 (sta y)
FRANCIS JOSEPH ….. Appellant
Through: Mr.Yogesh Sharma , Adv. with
Mr.Prashant Badola, Adv.
Versus
GOVER NMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS ….. Respondent s
Through: Mr.Rajesh Kr.Agnihotri, Advocate
for R -1,4&5.
Ms.Puja Kalra, Advocate for R -2 & 3.
Mr.M.G.Anstin Arasu, R -6 in Person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JY OTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
:
1. This appeal has been preferred by original respondent No.6 in
W.P.(C) No.6560/2020 being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied b y the order
dated 17th September, 2020 (Annexure -A to the memo of this appeal) passed
by the learned Single Judge . D.N.PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)
Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video
conferencing.
2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that
W.P.(C) No.6560/2020 was preferred for demolition of the alleged illegal
construction carried out by the appellant herein (original Respondent No.6).
3. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 17th September, 2020
issued directions to carry out the demolition process for removal of the
2021:DHC:46-DB
LPA 273/2020 Page 2 of 3
encroachment. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are reproduced
hereunder for ready reference: –
“6. The petitioner wrote to the South Delhi Municipal
Corporation (‘SDMC’) on 31.07.2020. For some strange
reason, the Corporation states that the complaint was
received only on 04.08.2020. The refore, the aforesaid
contention of the Corporation is ex facie incorrect. The petitioner followed his complaints up with the local
police and the SDM of the area concerned. He also
posted his complaint by Speed Post on 31.07.2020 itself.
Surely, the comp laints must have reached the addressees
3 days thereafter.
7. According to the petitioner, the illegal construction has
encroached upon the public street and building material
is still strewn around, obstructing the right of way.
The
Corporation is stated to have carried out some
demolition action on 11.09.2020, and further action is
contemplated on 01.10.2020 .
8. According to Ms.Kalra, the learned counsel for the
SDMC, the on- going construction is an encroachment on
public land, and it can, therefore, be r emoved
immediately. In the circumstances, let the Corporation
carry out removal of the encroachment
9. In view of the above, let compliance affidavits as to
how the unauthorised construction came about be filed
in 3 weeks from today, by both the Corporation and the
police, with the prior concurrence of the Deputy
Commissioner (SDMC) of the area concerned, and also
with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner of the , as it deems
appropriate, within 2 weeks from today. The
Corporation’s Deputy Commissioner and the DCP of the
area concerned are expected to look into the manner in
which the encroachment has happened and ensure that it
is set right. They shall ensure that the public street is
cleared of all building material. The Corporation may
take assistance of the local police, as per law.
2021:DHC:46-DB
LPA 273/2020 Page 3 of 3
Police concerned. Photographs of the removal of the
encroachment shall also be filed. ”
(emphasis supplied)

4. Looking to the aforesaid directions by the learned Single Judge,
especially in para -8 thereof, it appears that the learned Single Judge had
directed the C orporation /concerned Respondent Authorities to carry out
removal of encroachment . However, no opportu nity of being heard was
given to the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for R espondent /SDMC submits that part of the
subject property has already been demolished . Nonetheless , we modify the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the
concerned Respondent Authorities shall give adequate opportunity of being
heard to th e appellant herein, before carrying out any further demolition or
before removal of encroachment. Remaining part of the order impugned
herein, needs no modification and is not interfered with.
6. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is disposed of along with
the pending application .

CHIEF JUSTICE

J YOTI SINGH , J
J ANUARY 06, 202 1
‘anb’

2021:DHC:46-DB