Second 482 Petition Maintainable On Changed Circumstances: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Aptech VP In Jal Nigam Recruitment Case Police Have No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Civil Disputes Between Parties, Must Adhere To Statutory Limits: Andhra Pradesh High Court Consent Decree Based On Compromise Signed By Constituted Attorney And Counsel Is Binding Even After 30 Years: Bombay High Court Changing Service Conditions Mid-Bond For Senior Residents Doctors Is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Quashes Retroactive Application Of New SOP Succession Certificate Under Indian Succession Act Cannot Determine Entitlement To Family Pension And Retiral Benefits: Allahabad High Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected For Failure To Value Reliefs Separately And Pay Ad-Valorem Court Fees: Delhi High Court NDPS Act | Non-Compliance With Mandatory Provisions Of Sections 42, 50 And 57 Vitiates Search And Seizure, Warrants Acquittal: Gujarat High Court FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely On Complainant’s Consent; Court Must Independently Scrutinize If Ingredients Of Offence Are Made Out: Calcutta High Court Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act | Permanent Alimony Must Be Based On Husband’s Financial Capacity And Wife’s Reasonable Comfort: Jharkhand High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Direct Registration Of FIR Or Constitute SIT When Statutory Remedies Under CrPC Are Available: Delhi High Court Child Cannot Be Used As A Pawn To Prove Adultery Between Parents: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea To Examine Minor As Witness Section 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate Cannot Give Criminal Colour To Administrative Disputes By Directing FIR Registration Without Compliance With Priyanka Srivastava: High Court Contempt Of Court Act | Burden To Prove 'Willful Disobedience' Lies Upon Complainant; Merely Alleging Non-Compliance Is Insufficient: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Dismiss Matrimonial Petition Merely For Lack Of 'Elaborate' Evidence In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Kerala High Court Election Petition Under Section 100 RP Act Must Be Supported By Mandatory Affidavit In Form 94A For Corrupt Practice Allegations: Madras High Court Water Act | Supreme Court Directive Overrides Previous Quashing Orders; Magistrate Can Proceed Against Municipal Officials For Unchecked Sewage Discharge: Karnataka High Court A&C Act | Arbitrator’s Decision On Jurisdiction Treated As A Preliminary Issue Amounts To An 'Interim Award' Amenable To Challenge Under Section 34: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act | No Requirement To Hear Accused At Pre-Cognizance Stage Under Section 223 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 94 BNSS | Financial Institutions Entitled To Retain Custody Of Pledged Gold Provided Undertaking Is Filed Before Trial Court: Telangana High Court Family Courts Act | Section 14 Overrides Section 92 Indian Evidence Act To Admit Oral Evidence For Proving Real Source Of Funds: Kerala High Court

Delhi High Court Grants Permission for Property Repairs Post-MCD Demolition: A Move Towards Amicable Resolution and Regularisation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment that clarifies the rights of property owners to undertake repairs, the High Court of Delhi, led by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, has set a precedent in the case of Lakhbir Singh (since deceased) & Ors. Versus Kawaljeet Singh Bhatia & Anr. The court decisively ruled in favor of allowing property owners to conduct self-funded repairs on their properties, especially in cases where damage is incurred due to actions by municipal bodies.

The judgment, pronounced on 24th November 2023, addresses a dispute where the petitioner’s property was damaged due to demolition activities carried out by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on an adjacent property. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India after their application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to repair their property, was dismissed by the Trial Court.

In her landmark observation, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted, “There is no legal impediment in the Petitioner carrying out the repairs proposed by them in this petition.” This statement underlines the court’s stance on the fundamental right of property owners to maintain and repair their premises, especially in scenarios where external factors have caused damage.

The case also highlighted the issue of unauthorized constructions, with the court confirming that no current proceedings were pending against the petitioner’s property for such violations. Moreover, the judgment laid out a clear path for both the petitioner and the respondent to apply for regularization of any unauthorized constructions under the existing policy.

The court’s decision, setting aside the previous order of the Trial Court, has been widely welcomed by legal experts and property owners alike. It not only reinforces the rights of individuals to maintain their properties but also delineates the responsibilities and processes involved in such circumstances.

In conclusion, this ruling by the High Court of Delhi serves as a guiding principle for similar cases, ensuring that property owners are not unduly hindered from undertaking necessary repairs and maintenance of their properties.

Date of Decision: 24th November 2023

LAKHBIR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) & ORS. VS KAWALJEET SINGH BHATIA & ANR

Latest Legal News