Through the listening to right now, Senior Advocate Sanjay Poddar, showing for MCD, instructed the Courtroom that the demolished constructing stood on an encroached portion of a public road.
“Let him make an announcement that his home just isn’t on the general public road. Allow them to file an affidavit,” Poddar added.
“(Even) in case you are of the view it’s on a public road, then additionally you’ll (must) difficulty a discover,” the Courtroom mentioned.
Extra Solicitor Normal Chetan Sharma urged that the petition needs to be confined solely to MCD demolitions and shouldn’t concern itself with the police probe into the homicide case.
“I’ll counsel this. Let a petition confining solely to so referred to as MCD violation be maintained. This petition in its current kind is mischievous,” it was argued.
“I’ll try this, however do not take any motion. It may’t be that I ask him to file a greater petition, and within the meantime you take away every thing,” the Courtroom mentioned.
Poddar mentioned that the legislation doesn’t require service on discover on case of such encroachments.
“It makes no distinction whether it is eliminated or right now or tomorrow. I’m right here. My lord might not report something as a result of they may misuse it. Allow them to make an announcement that no portion of their home is on a public road and so they haven’t encroached on drain,” Poddar contended.
“Why the hesitation in giving the discover?” the Bench requested.
“Discover just isn’t required. Supreme Courtroom has mentioned that when the legislation doesn’t require discover… The legislation says I don’t require to offer discover,” Poddar replied.
“How do these properties have municipal numbers then?” the Bench requested MCD.
The MCD counsel then proceeded to point out sure images to the Courtroom and
