Delhi High Court
Smt. Kiran Bagga & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 VAD Delhi 820, 92 (2001) DLT 267, 2001 (59) DRJ 221
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioners, residents of Geeta Colony, have filed this writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise the unutilised strip of land and for issuance of supplementary lease deed to prevent demolition of the houses of the petitioners. A stay application has also been moved Along with the writ petition.
2. Petitioners in the writ petition have referred to an earlier writ petition, which had been dismissed in which they were directed to approach the MCD Appellate Tribunal. It is also stated in the writ petition that one Mohd. Mateen has also filed a Public Interest writ petition, wherein directions have been issued buy the Division Bench for demolition of the houses of the petitioners, against which the petitioners seek stay in the present writ petition.
3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 2.5.2001, petitioners were directed to give particulars of other proceedings and place documents/orders on record, before the writ petition could be considered. Petitioners have, accordingly, moved CM.4939/2001, wherein it has been stated that Public Interest writ petition filed by Mohd. Mateen is CW.No.6302/98, which is listed before the Division Bench on 16.5.2001. Petitioners have also disclosed that Civil Writ Petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioners, is CW.No.543/2000, pursuant to which they approached the MCD Appellate Tribunal.
4. A copy of the order passed by the MCD Appellate Tribunal, whereby the demolition order was set aside and directed to be treated as show cause notice has been produced. The Zonal Engineer had been directed to pass the order and complete the proceedings within two months, after giving opportunity to the petitioners herein.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners are only seeking allotment of the additional strip of land, which is of no use to the MCD or the Government and the structures made therein are now sought to be demolished, pursuant to the directions given in he Public Interest Writ petition No.6302/98, wherein details of all the structures are mentioned, including that of the petitioners are mentioned.
In case petitioners' assertions are correct that the order of the MCD Appellate Tribunal enclosed at page 22 of the paper book relates to the petitioners case, then the demolition order has already been set aside and the respondents have been directed to treat the same as the show cause notice and proceedings are going on in which case the petitioners can have no apprehension of demolition. Incase demolitions are sought to be carried out pursuant to the orders of the Division Bench in CW.No.6302/98, then it is for the petitioners to seek impleadment in the said case and seek appropriate relief.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/MCD, Mr.s. Mukherjee, submitted that petitioners had no right whatsoever to encroach upon public land, in addition to what was allotted to them under the Rehabilitation Scheme. Referring to the photographs attached with the writ petition, he pointed out that the encroachments are on public and rather the public street or passage abutting the houses. Besides, there is no legal enforceable right, which deserves to be entertained in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of the petitioner to seek execution of a supplementary lease deed in respect of public land abutting the allotted land. The photographs are also suggestive of this strip of land being in the nature of a street.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the present writ petition is a multiplicity of proceedings. It is devoid of merit. In any case, this is not a fit case, to be entertained in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
