In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court asserted the limitations of a writ court in resolving intricate boundary disputes requiring in-depth examinations of documents, surveys, maps, and a ground study of areas. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula, emphasized that such complex tasks are best suited for the expertise and jurisdiction of statutory authorities established under relevant land statutes enacted by the State legislature.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case at hand revolved around a dispute concerning the demolition of properties in the Mehrauli Archaeological Park, New Delhi. The Petitioners in W.P.(C) 840/2023 and connected matters claim ownership over their properties located in Khasra No. 1151/3 of Village Mehrauli. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) issued a demolition order to remove encroachments within the Park, particularly in the vicinity of Village Ladha Sarai, to protect its historical heritage. The Petitioners argued that this order should not affect their properties as they are situated in Village Mehrauli. A series of connected matters with similar grievances were tagged together, leading to a consolidated judgment.
Contentions of the Parties:
The Petitioners contended that they are lawful owners of their properties, and the demolition order was issued without affording them a fair hearing, in violation of Section 30 of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 (DDA Act). They argued that their properties are situated in Village Mehrauli and not in the area targeted by the demolition notice. Furthermore, they challenged the accuracy and legality of the demarcation report prepared by the DDA, which forms the basis of their properties being marked for demolition. The Petitioners insisted that their properties are wrongly categorized as encroachments on government or forest land.
On the other hand, the DDA asserted that the properties in question were acquired by the government and placed at its disposal in 1975, designated as "green" in the Master Plan of Delhi, and are meant to be preserved for conservation efforts. They argued that the demolition is aimed at protecting the Mehrauli Heritage Zone. The DDA also contended that the Petitioners have not substantiated their claims of ownership or possessory rights over the properties.
Observations by the Court:
The court recognized that the resolution of technical and specialized matters, including the interpretation of maps and analysis of geographical data, is beyond the traditional role and expertise of a court acting within the purview of writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the court declined to confirm the petitioners' status as owners or lawful occupants of the disputed properties, as this falls within the jurisdiction of civil courts where comprehensive evidentiary considerations can occur through appropriate trials.
While refraining from adjudicating the disputes based on factual determinations contained in the demarcation report, the court permitted the petitioners to present their case before the competent authority or courts with the statutory mandate to address the matter. Nevertheless, the court did set aside the demolition notice issued to the petitioners since no proper intimation had been provided to them, as mandated by the provisions of the DDA Act.
The decision of the Court:
Consequently, the court directed the DDA to initiate the process anew, ensuring that all petitioners receive a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard in compliance with the proviso to Section 30(1) of the DDA Act before any further demolition action is undertaken. This directive was to be completed within three months from the date of the judgment, thus resolving the matter.
Case Name: Dargha Najeebuddin Firdousi v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.
Coram: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case No.: W.P.(C) 840/2023
Advocates of the Applicant: Mr. Samrat Nigam and Mr. Amit Punj, Advocates in Item 43. Mr. Ankit Jain, Mr. Vidit Gupta, Mr. Aditya Chauhan and Mr. Chetan Singh, Advocates. Ms. Smita Maan and Mr. Vishal Maan, Advocate in Item 29, 39. Mr. M.S. Khan, Mr. Daniyal Ayyuri and Mr. M. Arshya, Advocates on Item 20. Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Mr. Aditya, Ms. Anjani Kr. Mishra and Mr. Bibhuti Bhushan Mishra, Advocates in Item 23, 26, 35. Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kotla Harshvardhan, Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Ms. Rishbita Arora, Mr. Arpit Kumar and Mr. Vishal, Advocates in Item 23. Mr. Amresh bind, Ms. Tusharita Sharma and Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocates in Item 37. Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay and Mr. Naseem, Advocates in Item 38. Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Shivankar Rao, Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Ms. Muskaan Gopal and Ms. Vidhi Udayshankar, Advocates. Ms. Garima Prashad, Senior Advocate with Ms. Roohe Hina Dua, Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Mr. Manish Gupta, Mr. Govil Upadhyaya and Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, Advocates in Item 23. Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Ms. Kajal Gupta, Ms. Somesha Gupta, Mr. Ytharth Kumar, Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Ms. Smriti Wadhwa and Ms. Pankaj Kumar Modi, Advocates in Item 28.
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Ms. Rini V. Tigga and Ms. Nidhi Thakur, Advocates for L & B. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Ms. Kritika Gupta and Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advocates for R-DDA. Mr. Sanjay Katyal, SC with Mr. Chand Chopra, Ms. Devika Mohan and Mr. Nikhil Singh, Advocates for DDA. Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Counsel-GNCTD with Mr. Divyam Kamra, Advocate. Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC for MCD with Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate. Mr. Harshal Arora, Advocate for BSES. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, SC for MCD with Ms. Swati Kwatra, Ms. Ishita Pathak and Mr. Kamal Rattan Digpaul, Advocates. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Hemant Shah, Mr. Akshay Rana and Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Advocates. Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Mr. Pushpender Singh Charak, Ms. Shubhra Parashar and Ms. Pinki Yadav, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC (Civil) with Mr. Abhishek Khari and Ms. Disha Choudhary, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Advocate for R-3 in Item 21. Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC GNCTD with Ms. Sheenu Priya, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Shukla, Mr. Muhammad Zaid, Mr. Sudhir and Mr. Sumit Choudhary, Advocates for GNCTD. Mr. Abhinav Singh, Ms. Swega Agarwal, Mr. Rajat M. Dwivedi and Ms. Bhavi Garg, Advocates for GNCTD in Item 21. Ms. Rachita Garg, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Vineet Dhanda, Advocate for R-3 in Item 28.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
