It also asked the South Delhi Municipal Corporation(SDMC) to pay the owner Rs 50 lakh compensation for the loss of "reputation, accommodation and valuables".
Additional District Judge Neera Bharihoke decided the suit in favour of plaintiff Ashok Sikka, whose house was demolished without any notice on May 23, 2007, and pulled up the authority saying its officials went outside their prescribed scope of duties and took illegal gratification.
In its over 100-page judgement, the court noted that the SDMC did not serve the owner a notice to vacate the premises under the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act which is "a standard procedure adopted by MCD in relation to occupied properties being subjected to demolition."
"The defendants 4-9 (former MCD commissioners and engineers) conspired to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff and he suffered in this whole process whereby life-time earnings were destroyed by the defendant without sanction authority of law and only due to their illegal activities.
She also observed that the property was protected from demolition under Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Act, 2006.
It said the SDMC officials "in blatant disregard to the law and procedure" and without any authority or court order with intention to deprive the owner of his lawful possession of the property, "trespassed" into the same on May 23, 2007 early morning.
The illegal and unauthorised demolition was carried out from May 23-26 and on May 30, 2007 and Sikka and his family were evicted, the court said.
"The court can take judicial notice of the kind of trauma and misfortune the plaintiff must have gone through at the relevant time," it said, adding that due to lack of prior intimation, his expensive household items were damaged or stolen as he could not shift them to a secure place.
The court noted that over seven years have elapsed since the disposal of a similar writ petition against illegal demolition of a house, but "the government of India has still not formulated any policy in respect of Sainik Farms and its residents, despite giving an assurance" before the high court that a policy decision would be taken by December 31, 2010.
Sikka had filed a mandatory injunction seeking damages and compensation for the "agony and inconvenience" suffered because of demolition of his house in 2007 and sought damages of Rs one crore for the loss suffered due to actions of the authorities which were illegal and corrupt.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
