De-sealing of Properties in Delhi: 6 Things You Must Know

Supreme Court has, in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others [WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.4677 OF 1985], ordered de-sealing of residential units in Delhi which had been sealed by a Court-appointed Monitoring Committee. Here are 6 things that you must know about de-sealing of properties and issues connected with it.

1. Issue Before the Court

The present judgement of the court was in relation to the the authority of the “Monitoring Committee to seal the residential premises on the private land” particularly when they are not being used for the “commercial purpose”. Thus, the only question before the court was ‘whether the Monitoring Committee could have sealed these residential premises.’

2. About the Monitoring Committee

On the orders of the Supreme Court, a Monitoring Committee (MC) was constituted (to prevent misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes) on 24.03.2006 which was deprived of its powers on 30.4.2012. Later vide order dated 6.12.2017, powers of the Monitoring Committee were restored. Further a Special Task Force was also constituted as per order dated 24.4.2018 to remove the encroachments on public roads, public streets, and pedestrian street. The Monitoring Committee were to make recommendations to the Special Task Force with respect the aforementioned encroachments on public roads etc.

3. Monitoring Committee Authorised For?

The court observed that it was apparent from the various orders passed by the Supreme Court from time to time and from the various reports of the Monitoring Committee that it was never authorised by the Court to take action against the residential premises that were not being used for commercial purposes. In this regard the court observed that “At no point in time, this Court had empowered the Monitoring Committee to act vis­ à ­vis to the purely residential premises.”

4. Deprivation of Property Only by Following Due Process

The Court also observed that power of sealing of property carries civil consequences. A person can be deprived of the property only by following a procedure in accordance with law. When the statute prescribes a mode, the property's deprivation cannot be done in other modes since the Court did not authorise the Committee to take action in the matter. It observed as under:

“If there is unauthorised 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.”

5. Order Not Meant to Belittle Work Done by Monitoring Committee

The Supreme Court, while giving the orders of de-sealing all the properties that were sealed and quashing the notices issued directing demolition of properties pursuant to the report of the Monitoring Committee, in the end clarified that the present order and directions were not at all meant to ‘belittle the yeomen service done by the Monitoring Committee for protection of Delhi.’

6. Right to Property a Constitutional and Human Right

This judgment comes after the Supreme Court reiterated, in the case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6156 OF 2013], that the right to property is still a constitutional right and a human right. The ruling came in a case relating to property dispute between Hari Krishna Mandir Trust and Pune Municipal Corporation, wherein the trust had requested the State Government to correct the wrong entry (as internal road to the Trust) in the name of Pune Municipal Corporation.

Also read: 5 Important Judgements related to Contempt of Court