- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 18 November 2024
- Bench
- Prateek Jalan
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 6911/2015
Judgment
O R D E R %
18.11.2024
¶1The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Director, Defence Estates, upholding notices issued by the Delhi Cantonment Board ["DCB"] with regard to the demolition of her immovable property [No. IV/1/71, Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantt-10].
¶2During the pendency of the writ petition, by an order dated
24.08.2016, the petitioner was permitted to file an application for composition/regularisation of the construction, which was to be considered by DCB.
¶3On 17.07.2018, a meeting of the Special Cantonment Board was This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 6911/2015 held at which the petitioner's request was considered. The composition/regularisation plan was, however, rejected on the ground of excess ground coverage. It was noted in the said order that all other parameters in her application were as per the existing building bye-laws except for excess ground coverage. It was further noted that upon removal of the excess ground coverage by demolition of the excess area, a fresh compounding application could be filed, which would be considered by the board.
¶4Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, learned counsel for the petitioner, has handed up a copy of the said minutes, which are taken on record. He states that the petitioner wishes to proceed in terms of the said resolution. She will make a fresh application to DCB for composition/regularisation, after removal of the excess ground coverage. Mr. Ankur Mishra, learned counsel for DCB, states that if such an application is made, it will be considered in accordance with law.
¶5The writ petition is disposed of in terms of these submissions. PRATEEK JALAN, J NOVEMBER 18, 2024 'pv/kb'/ This is a digitally signed order.
Case details
Parties and counsel
W.P.(C) 6911/2015 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6911/2015 & CM APPL. 12664/2015 KANTA KADYAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr. Rishabh Verma, Advocates for R-1/UOI. Mr. Ankur Mishra, Advocate for DCB. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.