2020 (8) TMI 942 - SC - Indian Laws

Monitoring Committee lacks authority to seal residential premises on private land not used commercially

The SC held that the Monitoring Committee lacked authority to seal residential premises on private land not used for commercial purposes. The Court ... Authority of the Monitoring Committee to seal the residential premises on the private land - used for the commercial purpose or not - Whether the Monitoring Committee could have sealed these residential premises? - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from the various orders passed by this Court from time to time and from the various reports of the Monitoring Committee that it was never authorized by this Court to take action against the residential premises that were not being used for commercial purposes. It was appointed only to check the misuser of the residential properties for commercial purposes. After that, this Court directed that the Monitoring Committee should also look into the matter of “encroachment on the public land” and “unauthorized colonies” that have come up on the public land and were wholly unauthorized without sanction. At no point in time, this Court had empowered the Monitoring Committee to act vis­à­vis to the purely residential premises. The power of sealing of property carries civil consequences. A person can be deprived of the property by following a procedure in accordance with law. The Monitoring Committee is not authorized to take action concerning the residential premises situated on the private land. If there is unauthorized construction or in case of deviation, the requisite provisions are under the DMC Act, such as sections 343, 345, 347(A), 347(B). The mode of action and adjudication under the Act is provided including appellate provisions and that of the Tribunal. It would not be appropriate to the Monitoring Committee to usurp statutory powers and act beyond authority conferred upon it by the Court. The Monitoring Committee could not have sealed the residential premises, which were not misused for the commercial purpose as done vide Report No.149, nor it could have directed the demolition of those residential properties. After going through the report of the Monitoring Committee and other reports which have been relied upon by the Amicus Curiae, there is no scintilla of doubt that the Monitoring Committee in the past at any point of time did not seal any residential premises being used for residential purposes, situated on the private land nor it could have ordered demolition. Let the property sealed be de­sealed, and possession be restored to the owners forthwith. Let this order be complied with within three days - Issue notice. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Monitoring Committee to seal residential premises on private land.2. Authority of the Monitoring Committee to take action against unauthorized constructions.3. Applicability of statutory provisions and the role of the Monitoring Committee.4. Legality of the Monitoring Committee's actions in sealing residential premises.5. Protection of property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Monitoring Committee to Seal Residential Premises on Private Land:The central issue examined was whether the Monitoring Committee had the authority to seal residential premises on private land when they were not being used for commercial purposes. The judgment clarified that the Monitoring Committee was appointed to check the misuse of residential properties for commercial purposes and encroachments on public land. It was never authorized by the court to take action against purely residential premises situated on private land.2. Authority of the Monitoring Committee to Take Action Against Unauthorized Constructions:The Monitoring Committee was empowered to address unauthorized constructions on public land and encroachments but not on private residential properties. Various reports and orders confirmed that the Committee's mandate was limited to commercial misuse and public land encroachments. The court emphasized that the Committee could not usurp statutory powers or act beyond its conferred authority.3. Applicability of Statutory Provisions and the Role of the Monitoring Committee:The judgment highlighted the statutory framework under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (DMC Act) and the Delhi Development Act, which provide detailed procedures for dealing with unauthorized constructions, including appellate provisions. The Monitoring Committee's actions were found to be unauthorized as they bypassed these statutory procedures, which ensure due process and protection of property rights.4. Legality of the Monitoring Committee's Actions in Sealing Residential Premises:The court found that the Monitoring Committee's actions in sealing residential premises on private land were beyond its jurisdiction. The Committee's reports and actions, including Report No.149, were quashed as they were not authorized by the court to deal with purely residential properties. The judgment ordered the de-sealing of the affected properties and restoration of possession to the owners.5. Protection of Property Rights Under Article 300A of the Constitution:The judgment reaffirmed the constitutional protection of property rights under Article 300A, which states that no person can be deprived of property except by the authority of law. The Monitoring Committee's actions were found to violate this constitutional provision as they lacked legal authority. The court emphasized that deprivation of property must follow due process as prescribed by law.Conclusion:The Supreme Court quashed the Monitoring Committee's actions in sealing residential premises on private land and directed the de-sealing of these properties. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and due process in matters involving property rights. The Monitoring Committee was reminded to act strictly within the powers conferred by the court, focusing on commercial misuse and public land encroachments.