TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (11) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... building in question is vocative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no pre-decisional notice was served on the plaintiffs. 3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that after obtaining sanction of the plan, the plaintiffs constructed the building in question. On inspection, it was found that certain portion of the building was constructed beyond the sanctioned plan. However, these deviations from the sanctioned plan were compounded under the building bye-laws on payment of requisite compounding fee. Thereafter, the plaintiff raised further unauthorised construction in the building as a result whereof the show cause Notice No. 86387 dated 21st July, 1987 was served on the plaintiffs. Despite service of the notice, the plaintiffs did not stop the unauthorised construction. Resultantly, the demolition order dated 3rd August, 1987 was issued and served on the plaintiffs. It was averred in the written statement that inasmuch as no appeal under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was filed against the demolition order, the suit is barred under Section 347-E of the Act and further the suit is also bad for w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le opportunity of showing cause why such order shall not be made: Provided further that where the erection or work has not been completed , the Commissioner may by the same order or by a separate order, whether made at the time of issue of the notice under the first proviso or at any other time, direct the person to stop the erection or work until the expiry of the period within which an appeal against the order of demolition, if made, may be preferred under Sub-section (2). (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner made under Sub-section (1) may prefer an appeal against the order to the Appellate Tribunal within the period specified in the order for the demolition of the erection or work to which it relates. (3) Where an appeal is preferred under sub-Section (2) against an order of demolition the Appellate Tribunal, may, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 347 stay the enforcement of the order on such terms, if any, and for such period, as it may think fit. Provided that where the erection of any building or execution of any work has not been completed at the time of making of the order of demolition, or order staying the enforcement of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal. Section 347-E bars jurisdiction of Courts to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any order or notice expellable under Section 343 or Section 347-B. Section 347-E is as under: 347-E. "Bar of jurisdiction of Courts (1) After the commencement of Section 7 of Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1984, no Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order or notice appealable under Section 343 or Section 347B and no such order or notice shall be called in question otherwise than by preferring an appeal under those Sections. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), every suit, application or other proceeding pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of Section 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1984, in respect of any order or notice appealable under Section 343 or Section 347B, shall continue to be dealt with and disposed of by that Court as if the said Section had not been brought into force." 6. In the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while considering the bar of Sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 343 and Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unity of being heard, no order of demolition and/or sealing of the premises/ property or any part thereof, could be passed by the defendant Corporation. The building cannot be demolished and/or sealed and /or essential amenities withheld at the whim and fancy of the defendant. To the knowledge of the plaintiffs, there has been no order passed by any Competent Authority either directing demolition or sealing of the property in question. Demolition has to be carried out strictly under the authority of law. It seems that the employees of the defendant Corporation are trying to achieve their ulterior motive by threatening demolition/sealing of the property." 8. Thus according to the plaintiff, no demolition order was passed for demolition of the alleged unauthorised construction in the building. It was pleaded in the written statement that the demolition order dated 31.8.1988 was served on the plaintiffs. Even after filing of the written statement, the plaintiffs did not care to challenge the said order by incorporating suitable amendments in the plaint. That being so, the present suit does not fall within the category of "the suit questioning the validity of an order passed....