Delhi High Court today sought the city government's response on a plea alleging that civic authorities were failing to prevent unauthorised construction and the sale of such properties in the national capital.
A bench of justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva issued notice to the Delhi government, DDA and South Delhi municipal corporation seeking their replies on a petition of an NGO which sought directions to the authorities to prevent unauthorised construction and their sale.
The court directed the municipal corporation and the city government to file status reports with respect to any circular that may have been issued to deal with transfer of such properties and listed the matter for further hearing on February 18.
During the proceedings, advocate Ajay Arora, who appeared for the municipal bodies, said they have been booking such properties which have unauthorised construction or were built illegally, but any punitive action has been kept in abeyance in view of the moratorium on the same.
He said there was a moratorium on punitive action against all unauthorised constructions which have been built till June 2014 as per the Delhi Special Law Act under which such properties are protected till 2017.
He also said any property that was booked for being illegally constructed or having unauthorised construction was also notified to the revenue office of the district.
The petition filed by Removal of Corruption and Welfare Society through advocate Ambareesh Singh Bhadauria has alleged that "rampant unauthorised development" was going on in agricultural land in Vasant Kunj area of Delhi which was being carried out without obtaining necessary statutory approvals and was liable for demolition.
The petition alleged that in the instant case, the statutory authorities have "abstained from any action" against unauthorised construction.
It also claimed that the public, who could be deceived into buying such unauthorised construction by developers, would be unable to approach the court for any relief as their property would be liable for demolition.
