Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 983 (DEL)

KARAMJIT KAUR v. GOVT. OF N. C. T. OF DELHI

2007-05-10

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
ORDER (Open Court) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: (a) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, setting aside/ quashing the impugned action of sealing carried out by the respondents on 19.1.2006 in respect of the properties of the petitioners, namely properties Nos. C-565, C-597, C-598, C-599, Khasra No. 20/1/2 now numbered C-531 and C-299B situated in the area of Sangam Vihar, Delhi, and further quashing/setting aside all actions taken, or proposed to be taken, by the respondents in pursuance to, or in furtherance of, the impugned sealing action; (b) a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof prohibiting the respondents from, in any manner, sealing or taking any other coercive action against the said properties, or otherwise interfering with the possession of the petitioners therein, except in accordance with due process of law; 2. It is the petitioners case that they are "lawful owners in possession of" certain properties C-Block, Sangam Vihar, which is one of the unauthorised colonies pending regularisation. The petitioners were aggrieved by a demolition action proposed to be taken on 22.3.2006. They filed this writ petition on 21.3.2006 on the strength of an order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P (C) No.905/2005, Sangam Vihar Vikas Manch v. Union of India & Ors. 3. The main plank of the argument of Counsel for the petitioner is that although the said order dated 20.10.2005 protects the petitioners, it is being violated and that the respondents are adopting an arbitrary pick and choose policy qua the petitioners properties. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 21.3.2006, the respondents have filed a status report on 25.3.2006. The status report indicated that: "(a) The construction of property Nos. C-597, C-598 and C-599 have been made on a 600 sq. yards plot, which is opposite C585 and was lying vacant as per survey report dated 15.11.2003. It is, thus, evident that the construction of the aforementioned properties has been made after November 2003. Local inquiries made by Panchayat Secretary and Halqa Patwari also reveals that the aforesaid construction has been undertaken about 15 months ago. (b) That as per the survey report dated 15.11.2003, a plot measuring 100 sq. yards was lying vacant adjacent to property No. C-564. Local inquiries made by Panchayat Secretary and Halqa Patwari also reveals that the aforesaid construction has been undertaken about 15 months ago. (b) That as per the survey report dated 15.11.2003, a plot measuring 100 sq. yards was lying vacant adjacent to property No. C-564. This plot has been numbered as C-565. The construction on this plot has also been made after 15.11.2003. Local inquiries revealed that the construction was undertaken about one year ago. (c) That as per the survey report dated 15.11.2003, a plot measuring 200 sq. yards was lying vacant opposite plot No. C541. This plot has been numbered as C-531. The boundary wall on this plot has been built after 15.11.2003.Local inquiries revealed that the construction was undertaken about 10-11 months ago. (d) That as per the survey report dated 15.11.2003, a plot measuring 1000 sq. yards was lying vacant opposite plot No. C275. This plot has been numbered as C-299B. The boundary wall and one room on this plot has been constructed after 15.11.2003. Local inquiries revealed that the construction was undertaken about 8-9 months back." 5. Thereafter on 1.5.2006 this Court granted an interim protection to petitioners I, 5, 6 after observing that there were "traces of evidence" that the constructions in respect of three of the properties i.e. C-599, C-531 and C-299B were prior to 2002. 6. A counter affidavit was been filed by the respondents on 27.2.2007 in which it has been stated as under: "The present proceedings have been initiated for the mala fide purpose of misappropriating Government land under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner (South). The respondents had carried out a survey between 15.11.2003 to 19.11.2003 and found that the land in question was vacant. When the respondents discovered that the land in question was being encroached upon by the means of construction of concrete structures, the respondents made a programme for demolition of the aforesaid concrete structures which had illegally come up on Government land. Accordingly a public notice was issued on 29.4.2005 and was pasted at the site". "The respondents had carried out a survey of the land including the aforesaid Khasra Nos. A copy of the Survey Report of the survey carried out between 15.11.2003 and 19.11.2003 is appended hereto and marked as ANNEXURE C. It was found that the aforesaid plots were situated within the Gaon Sabha land and were vacant. "The respondents had carried out a survey of the land including the aforesaid Khasra Nos. A copy of the Survey Report of the survey carried out between 15.11.2003 and 19.11.2003 is appended hereto and marked as ANNEXURE C. It was found that the aforesaid plots were situated within the Gaon Sabha land and were vacant. As such, when the respondents found construction upon the aforesaid plots, steps were initiated for demolition of the illegal construction, which could not be carried out for the reasons stated hereinbefore. It is significant that the petitioners have not placed on record a single document which would show occupation/ ownership of the plots in question. The so called General Power of Attorney, Affidavits, Agreement to Sell are not even registered and as such no reliance can be placed upon the same. The petitioners have enclosed copies of payments made to Delhi Vidyut Board. This payment does not indicate that the construction existed at that time. The submission of copies of property tax receipt dated 29.7.2005 for the year 2005-06 only proves that the construction was made some time in 2005. In case the construction was made earlier, the tax receipts for earlier years should have been produced by the petitioners". 7. Counsel for the petitioners sought an adjournment to file a rejoinder stating that he wishes to file some more documents to counter what has been stated hereinabove. Considering the fact that the counter affidavit was served on the petitioners on 27.2.2007 this Court declined the request and proceeded to hear the Counsel for the petitioners at length. 8. Counsel for the petitioners repeatedly pleaded that the petitioners are entitled to protection in terms of the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by this Court. He submitted that the said order was being violated by the respondents inasmuch as they were seeking to demolish the petitioners _ constructions. He, however, did not dispute that the petitioners constructions were in fact unauthorised. Since obviously the properties in question are part of an unauthorised colony, the question of there being a sanctioned building plan or any documents of title did not arise. 9. Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that in the disposed of writ petition (Sangah Vihar Vikas Manch) an application was filed by them for clarification/modification which was not entertained by this Court on 20.3.2006 and resulted in their filing the present petition. 10. 9. Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that in the disposed of writ petition (Sangah Vihar Vikas Manch) an application was filed by them for clarification/modification which was not entertained by this Court on 20.3.2006 and resulted in their filing the present petition. 10. To this Court, it appears that if the petitioners case is that they are covered by the order dated 20.10.2005 and if that order is being violated they should seek appropriate remedies by way of a petition complaining of disobedience of that order. The petitioners, of course, would have to first make out a case that they are covered by and have complied with the conditions stipulated in the said order before seeking such relief. 11. The present writ petition on the very narration of the facts herein above shows that it involves disputed questions which cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated upon in the writ jurisdiction. Further, considering that this property is located in an unauthorised colony, this Court is not inclined to expand the scope of the protective order already issued by this Court on 20.10.2005. 12. For all of the above reasons, the Court finds no merit in the petition. Dismissed. 13. All interim orders stand vacated. CMs stand disposed of. Writ Petition dismissed.