Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1235 (DEL)

GANPAT RAM KHALIFA v. LAND AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

2007-06-13

J.P.SINGH

body2007
( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the constitution of India. WP (C) No. 4539/2007 is for directing the respondents not to demolish Nathu Ki Baghichi situated at Pachkuiyan Road, New Delh. In WP (C) no. 4540/2007 also it is prayed that respondent No. 1 to 3 be directed not to demolish the structures/jhuggis-cum-shops of the Petitioners. ( 2 ) I have heard Mr. Sanjay Jain Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. Arjun Pant and Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocates, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1,2 and 3 respectively. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the said land has been leased out to Sanatan Dharama Sabha by Land and Building Office, Government of India and it is the Sanatan Dharama Sabha which has inducted the Petitioners into the land. Learned counsel has further submitted that notices were often being sent to the Petitioners in the year 2001 but no further steps were taken. ( 4 ) NOTICES were again sent to the Petitioners on 9. 5. 2007. Reply was given by the petitioner on 15. 5. 2007 but again notices were sent on 7. 6. 2007 and the reply has been given on 12. 6. 2007. The Respondents are now going ahead with the demolition without giving any intimation to the Petitioners regarding the replies sent by them and that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given and in any case if the Petitioners are to be ousted as per master plan they should be given alternative accommodation. Further no steps have been taken by the Government Authorities for re-entering properties if Sanatan Dharama Sabha had violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed. ( 5 ) ON the other hand learned counsel for the Respondents have submitted that the Petitioners have no legal right or title whatsoever to continue on the land which actually belongs to Government of India. The Petitioners in any case cannot raise any construction without prior sanction from the NDMC and that the unauthorized structures were being demolished on the directions of the High court and on reports submitted by the Monitoring Committee constituted by the high Court. ( 6 ) IT is emphatically submitted that the Petitioners are rank-trespassers and unauthorized occupants. The Petitioners in any case cannot raise any construction without prior sanction from the NDMC and that the unauthorized structures were being demolished on the directions of the High court and on reports submitted by the Monitoring Committee constituted by the high Court. ( 6 ) IT is emphatically submitted that the Petitioners are rank-trespassers and unauthorized occupants. They do not deserve to be given even the notices that have been given to them. Further, that after considering the replies necessary orders have been passed which are appealable under the NDMC Act and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain these Petitions. ( 7 ) PERUSAL of the file also shows that no documents, whatsoever have been filed on record to prima facie show any right or title of the Petitioners on the disputed land/properties. The learned counsel for the Respondents have filed copies of the records under which action are being taken against unauthorized structures in Delhi and there is also reference to the High Court orders and the monitoring Committee constituted by the High Court of Delh. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING all the facts and circumstances I am of the view that prima facie the Petitioners have no legal right or title to press their claim. Secondly, there are disputed facts. Thirdly statutory remedy is available to the Petitioners. Fourthly the matter is subjudice before Division Bench of High court of Delhi in Public Interest Litigation. I, therefore, do not find any merit in these Petitions for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The Petitions are dismissed.