IN THE COURT OF SH.

PITAMBER DUTT :
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, M.C.D., DELHI.

APPEAL NO. 759/ATMCD/2023

Sh. Harbans Lal Khanna

S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass Khanna
R/o A-152, Second & Third Floor,
Shankar Garden, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi – 110018. ……….. Appellant

Vs

1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

(Through its Commissioner)
S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre,
Minto Road, New Delhi – 110001

2. The Assistant Engineer (Building - II)

Municipal Corporation of Delhi
West Zone, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi. .……. Respondents

Date of Filing of Appeal : 23.11.2023

Date of Order : 16.01.2024

ORDER

1. Vide this order, I shall decide the appeal filed against the impugned

order dated 16.10.2023, whereby application for regularization of second

and third floor of the property bearing no. A-152, Shankar Garden, Vikas

Puri, New Delhi – 110018 was rejected.

A. No. 759/23 Harbans Lal Khanna Vs MCD & Anr Page No. 1 of 8
2. Sh. Yash Gupta, Ld. counsel for the appellant has contended that

the appellant was not communicated the grounds of rejection of

regularization application. He further contended that if the appellant had

been communicated the deficiencies, on which, regularization was

rejected, then the appellant would have corrected those deficiencies. He

prayed that appeal may be allowed and impugned order of rejection of

regularization may be set aside. In support of his contentions, Ld. counsel

of the appellant relied upon judgment titled “Assistant Commissioner,

Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs M/s

Shukla & Brothers”, reported as 2010 AIR SCW

3277.

3. Sh. Mikhil Sharda, Ld. counsel for the respondent on the other

hand has contended that the application for regularization was filed by the

appellant along with the regularization plan but the said plan was not in

conformity with the construction at site, which was reflected in the

inspection carried out by the officials of respondent and it was found that

the regularization plan, in which, the stair case was shown from ground

floor to the terrace of third floor, was not correct as the stair case was

only existing from ground floor to third floor and for reaching the terrace

from the third floor, there is a separate stair case, which is meant to be

used by the occupant of the third floor only and not by the occupants of

A. No. 759/23 Harbans Lal Khanna Vs MCD & Anr Page No. 2 of 8
 other floors. He further contended that the regularization plan submitted

by appellant was not in conformity with construction

existing at the site, therefore, regularization application

was rejected. He prayed that application may be

dismissed.

4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Ld. Counsel for the

respondent and perused the appeal, impugned order, entire record and the

status report. A perusal of the above shows that the appellant submitted

the application for regularization of second floor and third floor of the

property in question and filed documents as well as regularization plan

along with the same, duly prepared by the Architect employed by the

appellant.

5. The Quasi Judicial Authority examined the said application and

found some deficiencies, due to which I/N dated 05.09.2023 was issued,

which was duly served upon the appellant, who replied the same. After

receiving the reply of the I/N dated 05.09.2023, a site inspection was

carried out and it was revealed that the stair case shown in the

regularization plan was not in consonance with the construction existing

at site, thus the application for regularization was

rejected.

A. No. 759/23 Harbans Lal Khanna Vs MCD & Anr Page No. 3 of 8
6. Ld. counsel has relied upon Para 13 of judgment titled “Assistant

Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract &

Leasing, Kota” (Supra), which is reproduced as under:-

“The principle of natural

justice has twin ingredients;
firstly, the person who is likely
to be adversely affected by the
action of the authorities
should be given notice to show
cause thereof and granted an
opportunity of hearing and
secondly, the orders so passed
by the authorities should give
reason for arriving at any
conclusion showing proper
application of mind. Violation
of either of them could in the
given facts and circumstances
of the case, vitiate the order
itself. Such rule being
applicable to the
administrative authorities
certainly requires that the
judgment of the Court should
meet with this requirement
with higher degree of
satisfaction. The order of an
administrative authority may
not provide reasons like a
judgment but the order must
be supported by the reasons of
rationality. The distinction
between passing of an order by
an administrative or quasi-
judicial authority has
practically extinguished and
both are required to pass
reasoned orders. In the case
of Siemens Engineering and
Manufacturing Co. of India
Ltd. v. Union of India and
Anr. [AIR 1976 SC 1785], the
Supreme Court held as
under:-

A. No. 759/23 Harbans Lal Khanna Vs MCD & Anr Page No. 4 of 8
 "6. ......If courts of law are to
be replaced by administrative
authorities and tribunals, as
indeed, in some kinds of cases,
with the proliferation of
Administrative Law, they may
have to be so replaced, it is
essential that administrative
authorities and tribunals
should accord fair and proper
hearing to the persons sought
to be affected by their orders
and give sufficiently clear and
explicit reasons in support of
the orders made by them. Then
alone administrative
authorities and tribunals
exercising quasi-judicial
function will be able to justify
their existence and
carry credibility with the
people by inspiring confidence
in the adjudicatory process.
The rule requiring reasons to
be given in support of an order
is, like the principle of audi
alteram partem, a basic
principle of natural justice
which must inform every
quasi-judicial process and this
rule must be observed in its
proper spirit and mere
pretence of compliance with it
would not satisfy the
requirement of law. ..."

7. The principle of natural justice, as propounded in the above

judgment, has been complied with in the present case. The application

filed by the appellant for regularization of his property along with

documents was examined by the respondent and I/N dated 05.09.2023

was issued regarding the deficiencies appearing in the documents filed by

the appellant.

A. No. 759/23 Harbans Lal Khanna Vs MCD & Anr Page No. 5 of 8
8. After receiving the reply to the I/N, officials of respondent carried

out site inspection to verify the construction existing at site from the

regularization plan submitted by the appellant. The construction existing

at site was not found in conformity with the regularization plan submitted

by the appellant along with his application for regularization.

9. The regularization plan was submitted by the appellant along with

his application for regularization, which was prepared by his Architect.

The said regularization plan should have been in conformity with the

construction existing at site. However, same was found not in conformity

with the construction existing at site during inspection, which has not

been disputed.

10. The appellant submitted an incorrect regularization plan, thus,

made the Department believe about the correctness of the regularization

plan. The said fact came into the knowledge of the Quasi Judicial

Authority, when site inspection of the property in question was carried

out.

11. The application for regularization accompanied with the

regularization plan thus was not sustainable as same was filed on the

basis of incorrect information.

A. No. 759/23 Harbans Lal Khanna Vs MCD & Anr Page No. 6 of 8
12. The appellant was required to file correct regularization plan in

consonance with the construction existing at site. However, instead of

filing the correct plan, the appellant filed a plan, which is not in

consonance with the construction existing at site.

13. The appellant has thus filed the application for regularization on

the basis of regularization plan, which was not in consonance with the

construction existing at site, therefore, the application for regularization

filed by appellant was required to be rejected.

14. The Quasi Judicial Authority came to know about the incorrectness

of the regularization plan during site inspection, thus, it has rightly

rejected the application for regularization vide

order dated 16.10.2023 and I find no legal infirmity in the

same.

15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the

considered view that the Quasi Judicial Authority has passed the order of

rejection of regularization dated 16.10.2023 in accordance with law and I

find no legal infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the

appellant is dismissed.

A. No. 759/23 Harbans Lal Khanna Vs MCD & Anr Page No. 7 of 8
16. The record of the respondent be send back alongwith copy of this

order. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due

compliance.

Announced in the open Court

Today i.e. on 16.01.2024
(PITAMBER DUTT)
AD&SJ-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal : MCD Delhi

A. No. 759/23 Harbans Lal Khanna Vs MCD & Anr Page No. 8 of 8