Though unauthorized illegal construction is becoming rampant it cannot be countenanced : Delhi High Court
A party that does not approach the Court with clean hands and files a petition with ulterior motives will not be permitted to invoke the extra ordinary Writ jurisdiction of the court. This was held in the judgment passed by a single judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, in the matter of Pawan Kumar Saraswat V. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. [W.P.(C) 6676/ 2021 & CM APPLs. 21018/2021, 23797 – 798/2021], dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a petition seeking a direction against the respondent-Corporation to take action against unauthorized illegal construction of commercial nature, deviation and encroachment of property. He petitioner also further seeks cancellation of sanction plan.
As per the petitioner illegal unauthorized construction activity is being raised in the subject property contrary to the sanctioned building plan and there is a deviation and encroachment.
Counsel appearing for the respondent, on advance notice, submitted that petitioner has made several concealments and misrepresentations. He submitted that petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance based on forged and fabricated document against respondent no. 3 and there was no interim order granted. He also submitted that petitioner had even entered into a Memo of Understanding with the subsequent purchasers to give up his alleged rights for a sum of Rs. 1 crore 98 lakhs out of which Rs. 1 crore 68 lakhs have been already received by the petitioner.
It was also stated that the petition is motivated and petitioner has filed this petition with ulterior motive and for the purpose of extorting money. He further submits that despite the fact that petitioner is aware of the owners of the property he has purposely not impleaded them in these proceedings.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner in one of the documents annexed to the petition i.e. a complaint to the Police Commissioner has mentioned about the Suit and the details of the owners.
After hearing both the parties The Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and held that the fact that petitioner has specifically mentioned about the names of the owners and the civil litigation in the Police Complaint but has completely kept silent about the same in the petition filed before this court, goes on to show that petitioner has purposely made misrepresentations and concealments in the petition.
Judgement reviewed by – Vaishnavi Raman