Sealing: SC slams DDA, civic bodies for 'mess' in Delhi

The Supreme Court Thursday came down heavily on the Delhi Development Authority and other civic agencies for keeping "their eyes closed" on misuse of residential premises for commercial purpose since 2006 that has led to a "mess" in the national capital.

The apex court said authorities, including the court-mandated monitoring committee, should be allowed to seal a property being misused and if its owner does not furnish documents showing permission or licence to run the business.

A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur also slammed the Centre for not giving requisite information to the court about the survey conducted in south Delhi areas to ascertain misuse of residential properties.

"There cannot be a compelling reason for misuse. It is a mess. According to newspapers, around 56,000 properties are being misused. From 2006 onwards, the DDA and the municipal corporations of Delhi have not done anything and that is why we are facing these problems," the bench, comprising justices M M Shantanagoudar and S Abdul Nazeer, said.

"The Supreme Court had said way back in 2006 that there is connivance and corruption but DDA and MCDs have not learnt a lesson. They have kept their eyes closed," the bench said.

It said that if the owner of a property, which is being misused, is unable to produce relevant documents within 48 hours before authorities, the premises should be sealed.

The bench observed that subsequent to its orders, there does not seem to be any agreement between the Centre and the counsel assisting the court as amicus curiae on the sealing matter on the issue of giving advance notice to the owner of a property before sealing it.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, assisting the court as amicus curiae, gave suggestions for sealing of premises that were being misused.

"The concerned municipal authorities, accompanied, if necessary, by the representatives of the monitoring committee, will visit the premises which are allegedly being misused for unauthorised activity. The team will videograph the unauthorised activity in the presence of the persons who are misusing the premises for unauthorised activity," the proposal given by Kumar stated.

He said people misusing premises for unauthorised activity would be asked to produce permission or licence to carry out that activity and if such a document was produced, "the matter closes then and there".

The proposal also said that if a person was unable to produce any permission or licence, he or she would be given 48 hours to produce the same.

It said that after 48 hours, the team which had videographed the misuse would visit there again and if the owner produces the licence or permission, the matter would end there.

"However, in the event the persons are unable to produce any permission or licence, the premises will be sealed due to the unauthorised misuse," it said adding that if the owner would give an undertaking that he would stop the misuse, then another 48 hours would be given to him.

The bench noted in its order that the entire process of stoppage of unauthorised user would be completed within 48 hours in some circumstances and on the outside within 96 hours.

"Amicus curiae points out that laxity in sealing is giving an opportunity to misusers to clean up their act," the bench said.

Additional Solicitor Generals A N S Nadkarni and P S Narasimha, appearing for the Centre and DDA respectively, told the bench that they would take instructions with regard to the suggestions given by the amicus.

The bench has posted the matter for hearing on Friday.

The apex court had in July said that a show-cause notice should be issued to the owner of building where unauthorised construction or misuse was found and 48 hours time be given to him or her respond to it as to why action be not taken.

The monitoring committee Thursday told the court that issuing advance notice creates more problem as people "hoodwink" with agencies which perpetuates corruption.

ASG Nadkarni told the court that if misuse was found, the owner be given notice and if after that the misuse remains, "there is no need to serve second notice" to the defaulters.

ASG Narasimha told the court that if owner of a property being misused furnishes documents in this regard, the DDA needed some time to scrutinise them.

The top court is dealing with the issue of validity of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 and subsequent legislations which protect unauthorised constructions from being sealed.