Delhi High Court Upholds Single Judge Order Paving Way For Demolition Of 12-Tower Signature View Apartments

 

The Delhi High Court has affirmed a single-judge decision that clears the way for the demolition and reconstruction of Signature View Apartments, a complex of twelve towers located in Mukherjee Nagar. The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, dismissed a petition by Man Mohan Singh Attri, who had challenged the earlier order.

The apartments in question were originally built by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as 336 flats for players and officials of the 2010 Commonwealth Games. Subsequently, the flats were sold, but questions later arose regarding the structural safety of the buildings. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), using its powers under Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (DMC Act), passed an order for removal of the buildings, on the basis that they were found to be structurally unsafe and dangerous, or likely to fall.

In its analysis, the High Court noted that multiple expert reports and investigations had been presented to the authority. These included a structural consultant’s report, a testing agency’s report, and expert opinion from the Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research, along with a report from IIT Delhi. The Court observed that these reports showed that repair works carried out by the DDA had been largely cosmetic, and could not remedy fundamental defects in the structure. Based on this material, the Commissioner (or his delegate) had formed an opinion under Section 348 that the buildings were unsafe and constituted risk to the occupants and those nearby.

One of the grounds raised by the petitioner was that the order of demolition was passed by a delegate rather than the Commissioner himself. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the delegation of power under Section 348 is permissible; merely because the delegate passed the order does not render it invalid or without jurisdiction.

The High Court concluded that the single judge had sufficiently applied the legal principles governing the exercise of removal powers under Section 348 of the DMC Act. Because there was relevant material before the authority, and the authority had formed its opinion on proper expert reports, there was no basis for judicial interference. Consequently, the Court found no good ground to overturn the order of demolition and reconstruction and dismissed the appeal.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community