- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that for one or the other reason the officers concerned of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are not taking any action for removing the encroachment on the public roads or at public places for various reasons. The High Court directed the removal of encroachment in 1995. That order was unfortunately reviewed after a lapse of four years and Respondent 7 who was encroacher on the public land near Lajpat Nagar IV got benefit of technicalities.
(2.) HOWEVER , when the matter came up for admission before this Court on 14/3/2001, the Court passed the following order: "After hearing the matter for sometime, we are told by Ms Binu Tamta, learned counsel for MCD that a decision had been taken way back in 1994 for demolishing the disputed structure allegedly constructed by the seventh respondent. We are not considering at present any argument of the seventh respondent as against the said decision because we are passing order without prejudice to the right of the 7th respondent to challenge the said decision, if any, made. But if such a decision was made by MCD either in 1994 or thereafter, we are at a loss to understand why MCD was disabled from implementing the said decision. Prima facie, it speaks much about the weakness of MCD, unless they explain otherwise to us. We, therefore, direct the Commissioner of MCD to show cause why the said decision has not been implemented and also to show cause why adverse remarks should not be passed against him for his inability to implement the decision taken by MCD as early as on 1994. The explanation should reach this Court either in the form of an affidavit or otherwise within one week from today." In compliance with the aforesaid order, the Commissioner of MCD filed an affidavit informing that the needful was done and the encroachment was removed and the Court recorded the same in its order dtd. 22/3/2001. Today when the matter came up for further hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that at present also Respondent 7 has reconstructed on the said area and has started his business on the same spot. As against this, learned counsel for Respondent 7 states that he is carrying out his business activities at the same spot without reconstruction of the premises.
(3.) CONSIDERING the stand taken by Respondent 7 and inaction of the officers concerned of MCD, we direct the Municipal Commissioner of Delhi to take appropriate action for removal of encroachment within the area of Block C, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar IV.;