Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 575 (DEL)

GOVIND SINGH v. STATE OF DELHI

1994-08-30

DALVEER BHANDARI

body1994
Dalveer Bhandari, (Oral) ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order of respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 1st December, 1987. The order reads as under : "the order issued under Section 33 Delhi Police Act 1970, vide order No. 37011-50/s. o. /dcp/n. , dated 6. 10. 87, against dispute over property plot No. 20, In block No. 24, Shakti Nagar, Delhi between Sh. Partap Singh s/o Kanwar Singh r/o 25/103, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and Gobind Singh s/o Man Singh r/o 1/1, Roop Nagar, P. S. R. Ara, Delhi. Enquiry has been conducted by ACP/s. Mandi, and finding report in favour of Partap Singh s/o Kanwar Singh. SHO/r Ara will lift the seal and the possession of the plot No. 20, in Block No. 24, Shakti Nagar, Delhi be given to Sh. Partap Singh. Order of sealing passed earlier is cancelled, hence forth. " ( 2 ) THIS order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under Section 33 of the Delhi Police Act. Section 33 of the Delhi Police Act reads as under: "section 33 : Issue of order for prevention of riot, etc- (1) In order to prevent or suppress any riot or grave disturbance of peace, the Commissioner of Police may temporarily close or take possession of any building or other place and may exclude all or any persons therefrom, or may allow access , thereto to such persons only and on such terms as he shall deem expedient and all persons, concerned shall be bound to conduct themselves in accordance with such orders as the Commissioner of Police may make and notify in exercise of his powers under this section. (2) If the lawful occupant of such building or place suffers any loss or injury by reason of the action taken under sub-section (1), he shall be entitled, on an application made therefore to the competent authority within one month from the date of such action, to recieve reasonable compensation for such loss or injury, unless such action was in the opinion of such competent authority rendered necessary either by the use to which such building or place was put, or intended to be put, or by the misconduct or persons having access thereto. (3) In the event of any dispute in relation to the amount of compensation payable under sub-section (2) or the person to whom such amount shell be payable, the matter shall be referred by the competent authority to the District Collector whose decision thereon shall be final. " ( 3 ) MR. Mehra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 1st December, 1987 is entirely illegal, beyond the scope of Section 33 of the Delhi Police Act and without jurisdiction. According to Mr. Mehra, the question of title cannot be determined or adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in the proceedings of Section 33 of the Police Act. ( 4 ) MR. Mehra, further submitted that the petitioner had filed Civil Suit No. 2298/86 before this Court and on 6th November, 1986 this Court passed the following order in the interim application and in the main suit. The order reads as under : "let the suit be registered and summons vide process fee and registered AD covers be issued to the defendants for 13th January, 1987. This 1. A. has been filed in suit filed by the plaintiff against Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others and in the 1. A. it is requested that defendants 1 and 2 should be restrained from delivering the possession of plots Nos. 20 to 22 in block No. 24, Roshanara Extension Scheme Area, Shakti Nagar, Delhi to defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 3 should be restrained from raising any construction on the plot in question and further the defendants 1 and 2 be directed not to issue a letter of release of possession of the plots in question to the plaintiff. Heard. Adinterim injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from transferring or delivering the possession of plots No. 20 to 22 Block No. 24, Roshanara Extension Scheme Area, Shakti Nagar, Delhi to defendant No. 3 is issued. It is further directed that defendant No. 3 is restrained from raising any construction over the said plots. It would not be appropriate to issue any directions to the defendants 1 and 2 with regard to release letter in respect of possession of the plots at this stage. Notice for 13th January, 1994. It is further directed that defendant No. 3 is restrained from raising any construction over the said plots. It would not be appropriate to issue any directions to the defendants 1 and 2 with regard to release letter in respect of possession of the plots at this stage. Notice for 13th January, 1994. " ( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Municipal Corporation of Delhi and second respondent Water Supply and Sewage Disposal (Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi) were clearly restrained from delivering the possession of Plots 20-22 Block No. 24 Roshnara Extension Scheme, Shakti Nagar, Delhi to defendant No. 3 Pratap Singh. This is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for Pratap Singh that the said order has been in force since 6th November, 1986. The order of Deputy Commissioner was passed after the order of this High Court. Deputy Commissioner of Police can not pass am order over-ruling or setting aside the order of the High Court. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police is entirely contrary and clearly in conflict to the order passed by this Court. ( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police is dated 1st December, 1987. When the Order of this Court was in existance then the Deputy Commissioner of Police could not have passed the order directing that the possession of the said plot No. 20-22 Block No. 24, Roshanara Extension Scheme, Shakti Nagar be given to Pratap Singh. The order passed bv the Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 1st December, 1987 is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction and has to be set aside. Since the order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside only on this short ground, therefore, I do not deem it necessary to decide the question whether under Section 33 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, the Deputy Commissioner of Police even has the jurisdiction to pass such an order giving possession of the property to any of the parties. ( 7 ) IN view of my aforesaid conclusion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 1st December, 1987 is quashed. ( 8 ) THE petition is accordingly disposed of.