M.S. Sandhu vs Ndmc And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1953 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking restoration of property No. M-11, being a house plot in Aliganj, Lal Dora measuring 317 sq.yards and for reconstruction of the structure demolished by the respondent. The petitioner has also claimed compensation for mental torture.

2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is residing at F-117-119, Aliganj, now known as B.K. Dutt colony which is Government Built Property allotted by Ministry of Rehabilitation under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954. It is stated that adjacent to plot No. F-119 there was a residential house in the lal dora area owned by one Karnail Singh and the petitioner in the year 1956 entered into a partnership with Mr. Karnail Singh for carrying on fodder business. In 1957 Mr. Karnail Singh is stated to have sold the ancestral house and an agreement to sell was executed for the same for consideration of Rs. 99/-. Physical possession is stated to have been delivered to the petitioner. In 1980 even the sale deed is stated to have been executed though not registered.

3. It is stated that in the year 1968 the respondent issued a coal depot license in the name of petitioner's wife subject to a wall being raised around the plot M-11.

4. On 2.5.2000 it is stated that a team of the respondent came and carried out demolition without even issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and demolished the construction on plot No. M-11 causing considerable loss to the petitioner. It is stated that all the material lying there was also removed.

5. In the counter affidavit it is stated by the respondent that the petitioner encroached on public land and that only the encroachment had been removed. It is further stated that the land question was a public passage. Photographs have also been filed along with the counter affidavit as also the site plan.

6. It is stated in the counter affidavit that on verification of the record of L&DO it has been found that there was no property bearing No. M-11 in B.K. Dutt Colony. It is further stated that a bare perusal of the documents of license in the name of the wife of the petitioner would show that the coal depot license was proposed to be given for F-119 and not M-11. However, no license was ultimately issued since no boundary wall was raised nor license fee deposited.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

8. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Parikhit Thapa v. Nidhi Thapa and Ors., and Tribhovan Hargovan v. Shankar Desai AIR (30) 1943 Bombay 431 to contend that since the consideration for sale deed was less than Rs. 100/- the same does not require registration under the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882. The petitioner further contended that since there was no inter se business interest between the petitioner and Mr. Karnail Singh, the property was sold in overall settlement for only Rs. 99/- and the petitioner has continued in possession thereof since then. The petitioner have also strongly relied upon the fact that there were receipts of license issued in favor of the wife of the petitioner. However, a reference to the same including the rejection of the same vide letter dated 27.4.1968 shows that the same was for property No. F-119 and not for M-11. Eth site plan also shows that there is no property M-11 in the colony in question.

9. It is also relevant to note that the connection of the petitioner is that though the sale deed mentions the consideration only as Rs. 99/- this was so in view of other amounts due from Mr. Karnail Singh to the petitioner. Be that as it may that is not a question to be decided here though the fact remains that there is an agreement in 1957 followed by an unregistered deed of 1980. Even the temporary license stated to have been granted to the wife of the petitioner in terms of the letter dated 13.8.1968 refers to the property as F-119.

10. The aforesaid facts show that at no stage there was a mention of property No. M-11 which is property in dispute and is stated to be adjacent to the property earlier owned by the petitioner. The site plan is annexed to the reply affidavit. It is further found that there is no such property no. in existence as set out by the petitioner and the various documents filed did not refer to this property in question but only to the other property owned by the petitioner for which there is no dispute.

11. It may also be noted that in terms of the orders passed on 15.5.2000 respondent No. 1 NDMC was directed to fence the entire property and to maintain the same status without carrying on any construction on eth said plot in any manner. The reply filed by the respondent shows that the petitioner has encroached upon the public land which is earmarked as public passage in the records of L&DO. Thus it is a clearance of the public passage which has been carried out by the action of demolition of respondent No. 1.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances I do not find any case made out for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. Dismissed.