Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2007 DIGILAW 264 (SC)

Sudhir Madan v. M. C. D.

2007-02-20

B.P.SINGH, H.S.BEDI

body2007
ORDER : 1. We have heard counsel for the parties. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that only two applicants, namely, Ram Swarup (Applicant No. 1) and Ashwini Kumar(Applicant No. 3) are now pressing the present application. The application is not pressed on behalf of other applicants who were tehbazari right holders. 3. Mr. Sanjiv Sen, learned counsel for the M.C.D. states that alternative sites have been offered to the applicants in Tughlakabad and Defence Colony where such sites are available. Counsel for applicants Ram Swarup and Ashwini Kumar states that if these two applicants are allotted tehbazari in Defence Colony, they will have no objection to shift to that area. In these circumstances, we direct the M.C.D. to allot two sites of equal size within the Defence Colony area to the aforesaid two applicants. 4. For the time being we do not wish to pass any other direction. I.A. No. 407 in W.P.(C) No. 1699/1987 5. Issue notice. 6. Counsel for the M.C.D., present in Court, accepts notice. 7. Let reply be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within three weeks thereafter. I.A. No. 396 in Cont. Pet.(C) No. 506/2002 8. No one appears to press this application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution. SLP(C) No. 7025/2003 9. Let another set of papers be handed over by counsel for the petitioner to the counsel for M.C.D. 10. Counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within three weeks thereafter.