Shri Sudarshan Lal Bajpai Through ... vs Delhi Development Authority
2001 Latest Caselaw 1171 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

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

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plot No. D-3/79, Yamuna Vihar. A writ of prohibition is also sought against the respondents from interfering with the easing of construction of the said plot.

2. This petition has been instituted by Shri sudarshan Lal Bajpai, petitioner, through his attorney Smt.Bimla Devi. It appears that the plot which was allotted to Shri Sudarshan Lal Bajpai has been sold to Smt.Bimla Devi, to whom power of attorney has also been issued. The respondent/DDA has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that Shri Sudarshan Lal Bajpai had been allotted a plot bearing No.B-3/79, Yamuna Vihar in 1985. As per the counter affidavit filed by DDA the plot in question being plot No.B-3/79, Jamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053 had been allotted to the petitioner in the draw of lots held on 25.7.1985.

3. I have repeatedly enquired from the counsel for the parties whether plot nos.B-3/79 and D-2 Bhajanpura, are contiguous or adjacent plots. Regretfully there is no response from any of the counsels.

4. The controversy in this regard only gets deepened from the averments made in the affidavit of the Police Commissioner, wherein it is stated that Mr.Sudarshan Lal Bajpai was allotted a plot bearing No. B-379, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, measuring 70 sq.m. in the year 1992, vide DDA's letter No.F.17(II)84-LSB/(R) dated 26.10.1992. It is then averred that the said plot is in possession of respondent No.4 at present, who claims this as his property bearing Municipal No.D-2, Bhajan Pura, Delhi.

5. Considering the matter as it appears form the pleadings and the affidavits filed, I am of the view that essentially in this writ petition what is sought to be asserted are proprietary rights. It involves disputed and contested questions of fact. It entails determination of boundaries, demarcation etc. This cannot be given the colour of seeking enforcement of statutory obligations. This is not the domain of writ jurisdiction. In case the petitioner has the requisite permission for construction and documents of title and lawful possession of plot, it goes without saying that the concerned authorities will not cause any hindrance in his raising construction. In case respondent No.4 is interested in assailing or challenging the title or rights of petitioner to construct or has any grievance regarding encroachment, his remedy lies in the civil forum again.

6. Writ petition is dismissed with these observations.