In a significant legal case before the Delhi High Court, a dispute has arisen between Original Name1 and Appellant No. 1 regarding the construction of a lift. The construction, which has caused damage to the flat of Original Name1, is at the center of the legal battle. Let’s delve into the details of the case and understand the implications of the court’s judgment.
Facts
- The construction of the vide in question did not comply with the sanction plan.
- Original Names should have been used instead of Respondent No 1 or Petitioner No 1.
- The non-compliance with the sanction plan could have legal consequences.
- It is crucial to adhere to the sanction plan when constructing buildings or structures.
Arguments
- Appellant argues that the steel lift is supposed to be installed but a concrete structure is being raised.
- Appellant’s counsel clarifies that the construction is for the steel lift, not a violation of NOC/Sanction plan.
- Respondent argues that the construction is violating the sanction plan and was not sanctioned as per guidelines.
- The respondent argued that the allegations made by the petitioner were unfounded and lacked substantial evidence.
- ARG_RESPONDENT presented documents and testimonies to refute the claims put forth by the petitioner.
- The respondent contended that the actions taken were in accordance with the law and regulations governing the situation.
- ARG_RESPONDENT highlighted inconsistencies in the petitioner’s statements in an attempt to discredit their case.
- The respondent emphasized the importance of upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the proceedings.
Analysis
- Challenge to SDMC guidelines regarding construction of lifts in colonies not appropriate forum, should challenge the underlying policy instead
- Lift being constructed in colony according to SDMC Guidelines
- Lift being constructed adjacent to respondent No 1’s flat wall without required gap, causing damage
- The construction being carried out is causing inconvenience to Original Name1.
- The construction has caused damage to the flat of Original Name1, located on the ground floor.
Decision
- Appellant No. 1 has completed 75% of the construction work of the lift as per the sanctioned plan.
- An amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- has already been spent on the construction.
- Interim stay on construction is vacated, allowing the appellant to continue.
- If any deviation or violation of the Sanction Plan is found by SDMC, construction must stop immediately or corrective measures/demolition to be carried out.
- Appeal is disposed of with Rules 1 and 2 of CPC after a hearing with both parties within 15 days.
- Sanction Plan had been duly obtained by the appellant.
- Respondent has the liberty to file grievances of construction violations before SDMC, which will decide within one week of the application.
Case Title: MS PAYAL KASHYAP Vs. RITU PAHWA & ANR. (2024:DHC:4753)
Case Number: FAO-196/2024
