$~
3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.135/2010
% Date of decision: 24th January, 2012
SATBIR SINGH SEHRAWAT & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for
Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate, Advocate.
versus
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate for
respondent no.1.
Mr. P.K. Mittal, Advocate for
respondent no.2/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks adjournment on the ground that Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate has to argue the matter and he is busy in another matter. The matter had been passed over once. After pass over Mr. R.K.Saini Advocate is again not present. In the present facts and circumstances and considering the orders already passed in this Court, there is no sufficient ground for adjourning the matter today.
2. Learned counsel who appears for the appellant states that he also does not have any instruction in the matter and in respect of the order passed by this Court on 29th July, 2010. LPA No.135/2010 Page 1 of 3
3. On 29th July, 2010, learned counsel for respondent no.1 had submitted that the appeal has been rendered infructuous as the residents of Nangal Dewat including the appellants have already been rehabilitated in Village Rangpuri and the possession of land has already been taken over and the villagers have constructed their houses.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants on 29th July, 2010 had contended on that day that he did not have any instructions whether the appellants have constructed the houses on the land which was allotted to them.
5. It has not been disclosed as to what has been done by the appellants on the lands which had been allotted to them. The learned counsel for the appellants is unable to give any answer to any of the queries and questions raised by this Court in respect of the matter.
6. The counsel for the respondents had contended that after taking the possession of the lands, the appellants have constructed the houses. If that be so then the appellants are not entitled for change of the lands which had been allotted to them, possession of which was taken by them and properties constructed thereon.
7. The learned Single Judge by order dated 21.10.2009, which is impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal had also held that in view of LPA No.135/2010 Page 2 of 3 subsequent developments, the writ petition had been rendered infructuous and was disposed of.
8. In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st October, 2009 who had dismissed the writ petition on account of subsequent development entailing the writ becoming infructuous.
9. The LPA is therefore, without any merit and it is also dismissed. Parties are however, left to bear their own costs.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
J.R. MIDHA, J JANUARY 24, 2012 aj LPA No.135/2010 Page 3 of 3