Sd. Paramjit Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1055 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. With consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner, Sd. Paramjit Singh, has filed this writ petition seeking direction for respondent Nos.1 to 3 for removal of illegal cluster and constructions or obstruction existing on the 30 ft. wide road adjoining Army Press in Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the said Army Press. In this writ petition, I am not concerned with the issue of ownership of the said Press and nothing stated herein would amount to any expression of opinion on that aspect.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/MCD. Respondent No.4 has also filed his counter affidavit, wherein it is claimed that petitioner has made false allegations. it is claimed that the petitioner is seeking to somehow get legal sanctity for his claim to the title to the Army Press. As noticed earlier, I am not concerned with the issue of title in the writ petition.

4. MCD has filed two affidavits of its Executive Engineer and has field site plan and a rough sketch. In nut shell, the position which emerges, on perusal of the affidavits of the parties and plan, as filed, is that the width of he road, which was claimed to be 30 ft, is in fact 20 ft. Respondent No.4 claims to be having his residential structure on the said road for a long time. Annexure A-3, filed by the respondent, has shown the property of the Church in Blue portion. Learned counsel for the respondent/MCD, Mr. Raman Duggal, has stated that the Church is a very old structure and has been in existence since long. As a matter of policy, respondent/MCD do not propose, as of now, to disturb the same. Apart from the Church, there is an illegal encroachment of a platform, which is allegedly raised by the petitioner and then comes the residential quarters of respondent No.4, which are again followed by a platform encroachment by the petitioner. The encroachments by petitioner are shown in red lines. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no objection to the old church not being disturbed. Counsel for the petitioner states that within two weeks from today, petitioner shall remove the platform structures, which are shown in red portion in the plan, of his own accord. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.4, submits that the residential quarters are also in fact a part of the Church property. However, this is not the plea taken in the counter affidavit.

5. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent shall act with dispatch and proceed to remove the encroachments on public land as noted above in accordance with law.