Murti Sh. Jagan Nathji vs Delhi Administration
1996 Latest Caselaw 252 Del

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

(1) This is a petition by Murti Jagan Nath Ji Maharaj through Mahant Sharda Ram under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction that respondents be restrained from demolishing the remaining property of the petitioner situated on Khasra Nos. 148, 149, 151 and 152 and dispossessing the petitioner from the land comprising in the said khasra numbers except by due process of law.

(2) The claim of the petitioner is that he has been in possession of the land comprising of khasra No.148 and 151 as an owner for more than 60 years. In the year of 1926, the Sardar Kanoongo, Nazul Officer, Delhi claimed land comprising of Khasra No. 148 as Nazul property but the said claim was negatived by the Secretary, Notified Area Committee, Fort Delhi vide letter Annexure D. Thereafter, Tehsildar Nazul, Delhi Improvement Trust (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No.2) and the Cpwd, New Delhi claimed the said property as Government property but their claims were rejected by the competent authorities. In the year 1952, the Notified Area Committee Red Fort Delhi, wrongfully attempted to demolish some constructions on the land of Khasra N. 148 and 151. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction in the Court of the sub-Judge, Delhi and obtained a decree junction the Notified Area Committee Red Fort Delhi from demolishing the contraction raised by the petitioner (vide judgment Annexure H). Thereafter, the respondent No.2 attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioner on the disputed land and the petitioner filed another suit for permanent injunction against the respondent No.2 which was decreed in his favour vide judgment dated 7.6.1958 (Annexure J). On 4.5.65, the respondent No.2 attempted to u' polish the building constructed on the disputed land and the petitioner filed a Civil Writ No.218 D/65, which was dismissed with the observation that the respondent will not dispossess the petitioner or interfere with his possession of the property in dispute except by due process of law. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration of title over the land comprising of Khasra No.148 which is pending in the lower court. The petitioner has also filed a suit for damages against the respondent No.2, which is pending in this Court. On 7.8.1975, the respondents wrongfully started demolishing the Construction raised by the petitioner on the disputed lands. On these facts, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 for the following reliefs:-

a) issue such writ, order or direction as is deemed fit under the present premises more particularly an order restraining the respondents from demolishing the remaining property of the petitioner situated on Khasra Nos. 148, 149, 151 and 152;

B)direct the respondents to reconstruct the properties of the petitioner at the cost of the respondents;

C)direct the respondents not to take action against the petitioner's property except within the course of law.

(3) Respondent No.2 and 4 in their counter denied the petitioner's case and alleged that the petitioner has no right or title in the lands bearing khasra Nos. 148, 149, 151 & 152. It has been stated by the respondents that no action for demolition or eviction will be taken against the petitioner except by due process of law.

(4) As stated earlier, the petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration of his title in respect of khasra No.l48 which is pending in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi. In the instant case, the basic or fundamental fact regarding ownership of the land comprising of Khasra Nos. 148, 149, 151 & 152 is in dispute. The basic fact requires investigation and adjudication, which can't be suitably gone into and adjudicated by this Court in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. It is also significant that proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act) have already been initiated against the petitioner. In the event of any adverse decision, it will certainly be open to the petitioner to assail the same in appeal provided under the Act. In such a case, proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution can hardly be an appropriate remedy.

(5) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.