IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH KHURANA,

PRESIDING OFFICER : APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MCD

TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

Appeal No. 18/ATMCD/2021

Devender Balhara
S/o Sh. R. S. Balhara,
R/o- D-145C & D-145D,
Freedom Fighter Colony,
New Delhi

…Appellant
Vs.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Through its Commissioner,
Green Park,
New Delhi
…Respondent

Date of filing of the appeal : 19.01.2021

Date of order : 25.08.2021

ORDER

1. Arguments have already been heard at length and today the matter is
fixed for orders.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the demolition order
dated 15.01.2021 vide file no. D/4100/AE(B)-V/SZ/2020 in respect of
property bearing no. D-145C & D-145D, Freedom Fighter Enclave,
New Delhi, admeasuring 426 sq.yards.
3. It is pertinent to mention that the property of the appellant was booked
vide FIR/show cause notice dated 18.09.2020 and a show cause
notice of the same date was issued by the AE(B) and thereafter, the
demolition order dated 28.09.2020 was passed by the AE(B).
Thereafter, the appellant Devender Balhara filed the writ petition no.
8232/20 against the respondent SDMC and vide order dated
19.10.2020 Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid writ petition
ordered respondent to give hearing to the appellant and to pass
appropriate orders regarding the regularization of the construction and
apropos thereto the hearing was conducted and the representation of
the appellant was duly considered and the impugned order dated
15.01.2021 was passed by AE(B) South Zone wherein it is mentioned

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 1

 that the petitioner/appellant during the course of hearing has not
submitted any such document to indicate the authorized status of
construction as has been booked by the department and it was held
that the colony under reference falls under the category of
„unauthorized colony‟ and the Development Control
Norms/Regulations notified in the Master Plan 2021 and Unified
Building Bye-Laws 2016 are not applicable and consequently the plea
of the appellant seeking regularization of the existing structure was
rejected. The aforesaid order dated 15.01.2021 was passed apropos
the directions of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court vide which the plea of
regularization of the existing structure raised by the appellant was
rejected.
4. The appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 15.01.2021
alleging that the appellant is the owner of the property bearing no. D-
145C & D-145D, Freedom Fighter Enclave, Delhi as he purchased the
said property vide transfer documents dated 10.05.2018 from the
erstwhile owner Sh. Anurag Gupta and that the appellant with his
family is residing in the said property and since the property was in
dilapidated condition, the appellant carried out repair, renovation and
development work in the building to make it habitable and at present
the property is constructed upto 3rd floor with stilt parking. It is also
alleged in the present appeal that the erstwhile owner Sh. Anurag
Gupta was having an interse dispute with one Sh. Manohar Singh
regarding the title of the property in question and when the appellant
tried to contact said Manohar Singh, he instead of doing the needful,
started pressuring the appellant to pay him money and said Manohar
Singh also filed a civil suit bearing no. 558/18 titled as Manohar Singh
Vs. Anurag Gupta regarding the title of the property in question and
the appellant was never made a party in the said civil suit. It is further
alleged that Sh. Manohar Singh also filed a writ petition bearing no.
7497/20 before Hon‟ble Delhi High Court titled as Manohar Singh Vs.
SDMC & Ors and in the said writ petition Hon‟ble Delhi High Court
directed the respondent SDMC to serve upon the appellant a copy of
demolition order during the course of the day and allowed the parties
to avail their remedies as per law. It is also alleged that on 08.10.2020
the appellant approached the Dy. Commissioner, South Zone and
requested for personal hearing to put forth his entire case and the

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 2

 appellant gave a detailed representation to the concerned Dy.
Commissioner. It is further alleged that the appellant engaged an
architect and got prepared the application for regularization for entire
structure as the property is situated in Village Abadi of Neb Sarai. It is
further alleged that the appellant visited the office of the respondent
for regularization of the construction existing at the site as per Special
Area Building Regulation framed vide notification dated 17.01.2011. It
is alleged that the respondent did not entertain the said application
and handed over the copy of show cause notice dated 18.09.2020
and that of demolition order dated 28.09.2020 as well as a show
cause notice u/s 345A of DMC Act dated 09.10.2020. It is alleged that
since the show cause notice and demolition order was never served
upon the appellant, the appellant apprehending the coercive action at
the hands of the respondent filed a Civil Writ Petition (C) no. 8232/20
titled as Devender Balhara Vs. SDMC before Hon‟ble Delhi High
Court and vide order dated 19.10.2020 Hon‟ble Delhi High Court
disposed of the said writ petition with the directions that the writ
petition shall be considered by the respondent corporation as the
petitioner‟s (appellant‟s) representation and he shall be heard within
02 weeks and thereafter appropriate order shall be passed apropos
portion which can be regularized upon payment of requisite fee as
may be and the liberty was also granted to the parties to pursue their
legal remedies as may be available under the law. It is further alleged
that accordingly in order to get the property regularized, the appellant
applied for regularization of the construction vide application dated
16.12.2020 alongwith all documents and deposited the requisite
processing fee vide G-8 receipt dated 16.12.2020. It is further alleged
that the appellant attended the hearing proceeding conducted by the
official of the respondent department on 18.12.2020 and he informed
the authority that he had applied for the regularization of the
construction on 16.12.2020 and requested either to drop the
proceedings or keep the matter in abeyance till the finalization of
application for regularization. It is further alleged that the respondent
served the copy of impugned demolition order dated 15.01.2021 to
the appellant on 15.01.2021 wherein the respondent held that the
unauthorized construction which was booked vide file/show cause
notice dated 18.09.2020 is liable to be demolished and it is alleged by

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 3

 the appellant that respondent department did not appreciate the fact
that the application for regularization was still pending.
5. Ld counsel for the appellant also filed the written submissions/brief
synopsis on behalf of the appellant and he alleged that the structure
existing at the site is liable to be regularized and he also submitted
that since the regularization application is pending the alleged
unauthorized construction may not be ordered to be demolished till
the fate of regularization application is decided by the respondent
department. Ld counsel for the appellant has also mentioned in para
18 of the brief synopsis that the property in question is situated at
Village Neb Sarai now known as Freedom Fighter Colony and in case
the Building Bye-Laws, section 332 to 337 DMC Act and MPD-2021
are not applicable as alleged, then the entire proceedings initiated by
means of show cause notice dated 18.09.2020 and its culmination
into demolition order dated 28.09.2020/15.01.2021 on the pretext that
the construction is without sanction u/s 332 DMC Act or contrary to
sanction u/s 336 DMC Act as such is bad in law being passed on
wrong premise. Ld counsel for the appellant has also argued that the
impugned order has been passed by the respondent without following
the directions issued by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in writ petition
bearing no. 8232/2020 whereby Hon‟ble Delhi High Court directed the
respondent to pass the appropriate order apropos the portion which
can be regularized upon payment of requisite fee.
6. Per contra, Ld counsel for the respondent also filed the written
synopsis wherein it is alleged by the respondent department that the
subject property D-145C & D-145D is situated within an unauthorized
colony i.e Freedom Fighter Enclave, New Delhi-110068 abutting the
Village Neb Sarai and same is not part of the Village but is an
unauthorized colony and the copy of the list issued by GNCTD
mentioning Freedom Fighter Colony as an unauthorized colony at
serial no. 155 is annexed as Annexure-R1 (colly). It is alleged by Ld
counsel for the respondent that since the unauthorized construction in
the shape of stilt parking, ground floor, first floor, second floor and
third floor has been raised by the appellant after the cut off date and
in violation of the Building Bye-Laws, the said unauthorized
construction cannot be regularized in terms of the notifications dated
17.01.2011. It is further alleged that the appellant is not the exclusive

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 4

 owner of the subject property. It is further alleged that the subject
property was demolished on two occasions i.e 21.06.2018 and
04.07.2018 by the respondent on the basis of reference received from
Special Task Force (as formulated under the directions of Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India in the Writ Petition (Civil) no. 4677/1985 titled
as MC Mehta Vs. UOI on 25.04.2018) and after the demolition action
the structure over the subject property was reduced to only stilt floor
and the true copy of the report regarding the same is annexed as
Annexure-R2. It is further alleged that the sealing order has also been
passed against the subject property on 09.10.2020. It is alleged that
the appellant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and
he has not disclosed the complete facts to this Tribunal that his
property was already demolished in the year 2018 whereas he has
raised the fresh construction after 18.06.2018, hence, the plea taken
by the appellant in the present appeal that the construction over the
property in question was raised prior to the cut off date and that only
repair work was done by him is a wrong statement of facts. Ld
counsel for the respondent also submitted that the appellant may be
tried for the offence of perjury and making false statement before the
Court on affidavit and an action may be taken against the appellant
for the same. Ld counsel for the respondent also mentioned that
Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) no. 7497/2020 tilted as
Manohar Singh & Anr Vs. SDMC & Ors observed that the
photographs filed alongwith the application show that the building
which was under construction has been almost finalized; pages 63, 64
and 65 of the application show that some portion of the building are in
the finishing stages. Nevertheless, the obvious projection on the
various balconies, encroaching upon the public street cannot be
missed. It is for the corporation to explain to explain how this was
permitted to be constructed and as to what action it has taken in this
regard. Ld counsel also mentioned that Hon‟ble Delhi High Court
further observed that the said property was still under construction
when this Court had directed the corporation to take appropriate
action. However, the corporation seems to have permitted the
construction to go on. This needs to be explained. Ld counsel
submitted that from the abovesaid facts it is crystal clear that the
unauthorized construction has been raised by the appellant after

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 5

 18.06.2018 and the only ground to challenge the demolition order is
that the plea of regularization was not decided by the respondent
SDMC. Ld counsel mentioned that the appellant once again made the
wrong statement of facts before this Tribunal as letter dated
05.01.2021 bearing no. D/3993/AE(B)-V/South Zone/2020 was duly
conveyed to the appellant seeking compliance of laws as applicable
qua regularization and the appellant failed to acknowledge and
appreciate the said letter and true copy of the said letter and postal
receipt pertaining to the dispatch of the same is annexed as
Annexure-R4 (colly). It is further alleged on behalf of respondent that
speaking demolition order bearing no. D/4100/AE(B)-V/SZ/2020 dated
15.01.2021 was passed by the respondent wherein the respondent
clearly stated that the petitioner has not shown his willingness to
demolish the unauthorized construction on his own and his contention
to consider the application for regularization is not sustainable on the
ground that the Development Control Norm/Regulation notified in the
Master Plan-2021 and Unified Building Bye-Laws 2016 are not
applicable since the colony under reference falls under the category
of unauthorized colony and the said order was duly communicated to
the appellant as the said order has been filed by the appellant on
record alongwith present appeal. It is also mentioned that the subject
property bearing no. D-145C & D-145D, Khasra No. 38 situated in
Freedom Fighter Enclave, Delhi is situated in unauthorized colony
and it does not fall within Abadi Lal Dora Village Neb Sarai and that
Abadi Lal Dora, Village Neb Sarai, New Delhi only belongs to Khasra
No. 316 and 322 as per record. It is alleged that the appellant in order
to mislead this Tribunal has intentionally not appended the order
whereby his regularization application was earlier rejected by the
appellant. It is further alleged that a vacation notice dated 18.01.2021
was also issued and served to the appellant to implement the
demolition action. It is alleged that the subject property was entirely
demolished on 21.06.2018 and 04.07.2018 and after the demolition
action only stilt was left at the property and the appellant did not
challenge the earlier action/order, thereby accepting the same. It is
further alleged that in order to stall the demolition proceeding, the
appellant once again sought regularization of the unauthorized
construction by filing another regularization application during the

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 6

 pendency of the present appeal, however, the same has already been
rejected once again vide letter dated 13.08.2021 bearing no.
D/935/AE(B)-VI/Building/SZ/2021 and the communication qua the
same was duly made to the appellant and true copy of the pages
containing the postal receipts are annexed as Annexure-R8 (colly).
7. Ld counsel for the respondent argued that the subject property cannot
be regularized as the same falls within the unauthorized colony which
is on forest land as per the circulars of GNCTD and DDA. It is also
alleged that the said property does not fall within the list of colonies
which have been approved for regularization by GNCTD. Ld counsel
for the respondent also relied upon the map no. 472 pertaining to
serial no. 1080 (Annexure-II) : list of unauthorized colonies under
2008 Regulation of Gazette notification GSR814(E.) dated
29.10.2019 to show that the said colony falls within DFW Forest Area
and the true copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-R9. Ld
counsel also mentioned that as per the list prepared by GNCTD
mentioning the unauthorized colonies, the Freedom Fighter Colony is
shown at serial no. 155 as unauthorized colony. It is also alleged that
Union of India speaking through Government (Ministry of Urban
Development) vide office order dated 05.10.2007 bearing no.
O33011/2/94-DDIIB/Vol.XI has clearly stated at El. 1.2(A)
colonies/part of colonies falling in notified or reserved forest areas
would not be considered for regularization. The copy of the said
circular is annexed as Annexure-R10 (colly). It is also alleged that as
per law as propounded by Parliament of India and upheld by Supreme
Court of India viz. NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act as
amended upto date, any illegal or unauthorized construction which
has been erected post the cut off date of 01.06.2014 is illegal and
does not fall within the ambit of protection from demolition or sealing.
Ld counsel for the respondent also mentioned that Special Task
Force as formulated on 25.04.2018 as per directions of Hon‟ble
Supreme Court got the subject property demolished on two occasions
i.e on 21.06.2018 and 04.07.2018 and reduced the illegal
unauthorized construction to still floor only and that too in dilapidated
condition. Ld counsel for the respondent also mentioned that GNCTD,
on 23.01.2020, informed the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court that the
unauthorized colonies in forest areas are prohibited from

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 7

 regularization under the Centre‟s October 2019 notification to
regularize illegal settlement in the colonies and an affidavit was
placed before the Division Bench of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court on
behalf of Delhi Government stating therein that the National Capital
Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of residents in
unauthorized colonies) Regulation, 2019 clearly states that no right
shall be recognized over land in reserved or notified forest. Ld
counsel for the respondent also mentioned that as per the definition of
unauthorized colonies as mentioned in section 2(b) of National Capital
Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of residents in
unauthorized colonies) Regulation, 2019, the unauthorized colony
means a colony or development comprising of a contiguous area,
where no permission has been obtained for approval of layout plan or
building plan and has been notified for regularization of such colony in
pursuance to the notification no. S.O.683(E), dated 24.03.2008 of
Delhi Development Authority published in Gazette of India, extra
ordinary, part-2, section 3, sub-section (ii) dated 24.03.2008. Copy of
which is annexed as Annexure-R13 (colly). Ld counsel also
mentioned that the colony in question has not been notified for
regularization and as per the said notification, the cut off date for
regularization is 31.03.2002 and as per clause 3.3, the unauthorized
colonies/parts of colonies/habitance falling in notified or reserved
forest areas would not be considered for regularization.
8. Ld counsel for the respondent submitted that the entire case put forth
by the appellant is nonest and the illegal and unauthorized
construction has been raised by the appellant in blatant disregard to
the law of land and the action taken by the Special Task Force
appointed in consequence of the order dated 24.05.2018 of Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677/1985 and hence, the
present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. Ld counsel for the applicant argued that the property of applicant has
been grabbed by the appellant and unauthorized construction has
been raised thereupon and he also relied upon various photographs
of the land on which construction has been raised to show that
unauthorized construction after the cut off date has been raised by the
appellant.

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 8

 10. In the case in hand, the appellant Devender Balhara alongwith one
Deepti Saraf purchased the property in question bearing no. D-145C
and D-145D, Freedom Fighter Enclave, New Delhi vide alleged
documents dated 10.05.2018. The appellant has not filed any proof
on record to show that the existing structure over the property in
question was raised by him prior to the cut off date of 01.06.2014 nor
any such plea has been raised during the arguments. The only plea
taken by the appellant in the appeal is that the appellant only
conducted repair work and the alleged construction over the property
in question is liable to be regularized and that it was obligatory on the
part of the respondent to decide the application for regularization prior
to passing the impugned order dated 15.01.2021.
11. Ld counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the construction
raised over the property in question can be regularized and though
the earlier application seeking regularization of the property in
question has been rejected, however, a fresh application has been
filed by the appellant during the pendency of present appeal which is
still pending and therefore, the protection may be granted to the
appellant and his property may not be demolished by the respondent
department.
12. Per contra, Ld counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant
is not entitled to any relief as the earlier application seeking
regularization of the existing structure has already been rejected and
communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 18.01.2021, however,
in order to gain the time and to mislead to this Court another
application has been filed by the appellant seeking regularization of
the subject property during pendency of the present appeal, however,
the same has also been rejected once again vide letter dated
13.08.2021 bearing no. D/935/AE(B)VI/Bldg./SZ/2021 and the copy of
the aforesaid letter is also annexed with the written submissions
alongwith postal receipts.
13. In the case in hand, the appellant purchased the property on
10.05.2018 and appellant has not filed any document to show as to
what was the extent of construction in the property in question at that
time and it is very pertinent to note letter/report regarding STF-SNS
reference-2019011459 VC-DDA Dy. No. 244-STF dated 18.06.2018
regarding the unauthorized construction in property in question and as

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 9

 per the said report the owner/builder commenced the unauthorized
construction/work which was demolished at the initial stage itself on
21.06.2018 and 04.07.2018 and necessary action under DMC Act
had been initiated and it is also mentioned in the report that the
property is having stilt portion only in dilapidated/demolished condition
not being in use.
14. The aforesaid letter/report or the extent of construction left on the
property as on 04.07.2018 as alleged by Ld counsel for respondent is
not disputed by Ld counsel for appellant during the arguments. It is
also pertinent to mention that a writ petition bearing no. 7497/2020
was filed before Hon‟ble Delhi High Court regarding the unauthorized
construction in the property in question and Hon‟ble Delhi High Court
vide order dated 17.11.2020 observed that the photographs filed
alongwith the application show that the building which was under
construction has been almost finalized and that some portion of the
building are in the finishing stages. Nevertheless, the obvious
projection of various balconies, encroaching upon the public street
cannot be missed. It is for the Corporation to explain how this was
permitted to be constructed and as to what action it has taken in this
regard. Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in para 5 of the aforesaid order
further observed that the said property was still under construction
when this Court had directed the Corporation to take appropriate
action, however, the Corporation seems to have permitted the
construction to go on. This needs to be explained. Vide aforesaid
order Hon‟ble Delhi High Court directed the concerned Dy.
Commissioner of the Corporation to supervise the matter and to file
an affidavit in two weeks.
15. The appellant has filed the present appeal on 19.01.2021 before this
Tribunal in which he sought the relief to set aside the order dated
15.01.2021 regarding the property in question.
16. It is pertinent to mention that the grievance raised by the appellant
that he was not heard has been addressed vide order dated
19.10.2020 of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in writ petition no. 8232/2020
and the only grievance which has been raised by the appellant in the
present appeal as well as during the arguments is that the structure
over the property in question can be regularized and that the
regularization application is pending.

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 10

 17. So far as the plea of the appellant that the regularization application is
pending, it is pertinent to mention that all the regularization
applications moved by the appellant have already been disposed of
as rejected by the department and communicated to him vide
rejection letters dated 18.01.2021 and 13.08.2021 respectively. It is
also pertinent to mention that in the writ petition bearing no.
8232/2020 filed by the appellant against the respondent SDMC, the
appellant sought the relief against the demolition action and Hon‟ble
Delhi High Court vide order dated 19.10.2020 directed the respondent
SDMC to hear the appellant regarding his plea that large portion of
the construction raised on the property in question is regularizable
and it was also directed that the writ petition filed by petitioner
(appellant) shall be considered by the Corporation as his
representation and he shall be heard within 02 weeks and appropriate
order shall be passed apropos the portion which can be regularized.
18. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the hearing was conducted
by the respondent department and opportunity was given to the
appellant herein to explain his case as evident from the record and
thereafter the speaking impugned order dated 15.01.2021 was
passed by the Quasi Judicial Authority whereby the plea regarding the
regularization of the existing structure over the property in question
was rejected by the respondent.
19. Ld counsel for the appellant has filed the brief synopsis/written
submissions on behalf of appellant in which he claimed that the
Village Neb Sarai has been declared as urbanized village by the
notification of the government and it is also mentioned in the written
submissions that the property is situated at Village Neb Sarai now
known as Freedom Fighter Colony. The alleged government
notification as mentioned in the written submissions has not been
placed on record alongwith the written submissions.
20. On the other hand, the respondent has rejected the plea of
regularization on the ground that the property is situated in an
“Unauthorized Colony” where Development Control
Norms/Regulations notified in the MPD-2021 and UBBL 2016 are not
applicable. Ld counsel for respondent filed the written submissions
alongwith documents to show that colony where the property is
situated is abutting the Village Neb Sarai and that the same is not part

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 11

 of the Village but is an unauthorized colony and the copy of list of
unauthorized colonies under the jurisdiction of GNCTD is annexed at
page no. 21 to 23 Annexure-R1 of the written submissions filed by Ld
counsel for the respondent and in the said list the name of Freedom
Fighter Colony where the property is situated, finds mention at serial
no. 155.
21. The policy for regularization for unauthorized colonies was notified
vide gazette notification dated 24.03.2008 (which is Annexure-R14 of
the written submissions filed by Ld counsel for respondent) and
section 3 of the said notification prescribes the criterias for
regularization of unauthorized colonies and the appellant has not
alleged that his case falls under the criteria as laid down vide
aforesaid notification. Ld counsel for the respondent also mentioned
that as per map no. 472 pertaining to SR. No. 1080 (Annexure-2 : List
of unauthorized colonies under 2008 Regulation of Gazette
notification GSR 814 (E). dated 29.10.2019) the area in question falls
within DFW Forest area and he also submitted that any unauthorized
construction/development illegally raised in unauthorized colonies
cannot be regularized as the Development Control
Norms/Regulations notified in the Master Plan 2021 and UBBL 2016
are not applicable in the said colonies.
22. It is pertinent to mention that the judgments relied upon by Ld counsel
for appellant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case as the unauthorized construction has been raised in
unauthorized colony and the same cannot be regularized as the
Development Control Norms/Regulations notified in the Master Plan
2021 and UBBL 2016 are not applicable to unauthorized colonies.
23. It is pertinent to mention that in the judgment of Freedom Fighters
Social Welfare Association Vs. UOI & Ors, 2011 SCC Online Del
1318, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court while dealing with the petition filed by
Association of owners in possession of built-up residential plots in
Freedom Fighter Enclave Colony, Village-Neb Sarai observed that
now in any case, in view of the regulations of regularization of
unauthorized colonies in Delhi, 2008 which prohibit consideration for
regularization of unauthorized colonies/portions thereof falling in
notified reserved forest areas, the matter has been placed beyond
any pale of controversy. It cannot now be contended that the

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 12

 regularization of unauthorized colonies on land is pending
consideration. The conflict and the inconsistency relying whereupon
the petitions were filed and the interim orders obtained no longer
exists. The petitions now have to necessarily fail (para 16). The Court
further observed that there is another aspect of the matter. The
petitioners admittedly are tracepassers/encroachers on Gaon Sabha
land. They have no equities or rights in their favour and the petitioners
as encroachers be it of the Gaon Sabha or of the forest land are liable
to ejected therefrom (para 17).
24. In the judgment of Prabhat Kumar Sharma & Anr Vs. GNCT of Delhi &
Anr, (2018) 247 DLT 257 (DB), Hon‟ble Delhi High Court upheld the
ratio of Freedom Fighters Welfare Association case (supra) and held
that “110. A similar challenge was rejected by a Ld. Single Judge
when seven writ petitions challenging the steps taken by the
Forest Department and the Flood Control Department of the
Government of NCT of Delhi pursuant to the notification dated
2nd April, 1996. The decision of the Ld. Single Judge dated 15 th
March, 2011 is reported at 2011 SCC Online Delhi 1318, Freedom
Fighters Social Welfare Association v. Union of India and
connected writ petitions. We extract hereunder paras 2, 19 and 20
noting the fatual matrix and the rejection of the petitioners’ contention
that the land not shown in the notification was not part of the
ridge/forest. It was observed by the Ld. Single Judge that the
notification dated 2nd April, 1996 was not a sole repository of the land
constituting the Ridge/forest area and held thus:
“2. The challenge in each of the petitions is to the steps
taken by the respondents (being the Revenue, Forest and Flood
Control Departments of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD)
pursuant to the notification dated 2nd April, 1996 of the GNCTD.
The said notification was issued in pursuance to the directions
given by the Supreme Court in orders dated 25th January, 1996
and 13th March, 1996 in I.a. Nos. 18 & 22 in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 4677/1985 titled as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. The Supreme
Court directed that uncultivated surplus land of Gaon Sabha falling in
“Ridge” be excluded from vesting in Gaon Sabha under Section 154
of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and be made available for the
purpose of creation of Reserved Forest. The Notification declared

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 13

 “the uncultivated land of Gaon Sabha” specified in the said
Notification and situated in Southern Range as surplus land and
excluded the same from vesting in the Gaon Sabha and placed
the said land at the disposal of Forest Department of GNCTD.
25. In the judgment of Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC
396, Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that long duration of
occupation or huge expenditure incurred in making constructions
thereon or political connections were not justifications of regularizing
illegal occupations/encroachment of village/gram panchayat land.
26. The plea of regularization of the existing structure over the property in
question raised by the appellant has already been rejected after
giving hearing to the appellant vide impugned order dated 15.01.2021
as the property in question is situated in „unauthorized colony‟ and the
Development Control Norms/Regulations notified in MPD 2021 and
UBBL 2016 are not applicable to the land in question and
consequently the unauthorized construction raised over the property
in question is liable to be demolished. Hence, there is no infirmity in
the impugned order dated 15.01.2021 and the same is accordingly
upheld.
27. Before parting with the present appeal, it is pertinent to mention that
the appellant is stated to have purchased the property in question on
10.05.2018 and the unauthorized construction was raised in the said
property and the same was demolished at the instance of Special
Task Force appointed as per the directions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court
in the writ petition no. 4677/1985 titled as MC Mehta Vs. UOI at the
initial stage itself on 21.06.2018 and 04.07.2018 and the property was
having stilt only in dilapidated/demolished condition at that time.
However, the fresh construction was raised in the property and at
present the same is having stilt and four floors thereupon. The
property in question was booked by the department on 18.09.2020
when the stilt floor, ground floor, first floor and columns of second
floor had already been raised by the appellant. It is also pertinent to
note the observations of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in writ petition no.
7497/2020 which was filed before Hon‟ble Delhi High Court regarding
the unauthorized construction in the property in question and Hon‟ble
Delhi High Court vide order dated 17.11.2020 observed that the
photographs filed alongwith the application show that the building

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 14

 which was under construction has been almost finalized and that
some portion of the building are in the finishing stages. Nevertheless,
the obvious projection of various balconies encroaching upon the
public street cannot be missed. It is for the Corporation to explain
how this was permitted to be constructed and as to what action it
has taken in this regard. Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in para 5 of the
aforesaid order further observed that the said property was still under
construction when this Court had directed the Corporation to take
appropriate action, however, the Corporation seems to have
permitted the construction to go on. This needs to be explained.
Vide aforesaid order Hon‟ble Delhi High Court also directed the
concerned Dy. Commissioner of the Corporation to supervise the
matter and to file an affidavit in two weeks.
28. The unauthorized construction was completed by the appellant
despite the fact that the same was demolished at the instance of
Special Task Force on 21.06.2018 and 04.07.2018 and as of now the
entire construction uptill third floor has been completed with various
balconies having projections over public street. Hence, in view of the
facts and circumstances, copy of this order be sent to Commissioner,
SDMC and Chief Vigilance Officer to take appropriate action against
the erring officials.
29. With abovesaid observations, the present appeal filed by the
appellant Devender Balhara stands dismissed and disposed of.
Consequently the impugned order stands confirmed.
30. The file of the department, if any, be returned to the respondent
alongwith copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to record
room.

(MANISH KHURANA)
P.O : Appellate Tribunal : MCD
Delhi/25.08.2021

Appeal No. 18/21 Devender Balhara Vs. South DMC Page 15