Delhi High Court
Smt. Swaran Kaur And Anr. vs Dda on 5 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: 123 (2005) DLT 484
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Petitioners own property bearing No. 95-B and 95-B/1 (95-A), Sant Nagar, New Delhi. The two plots admeasured 200 Sq.Yds. and 135 Sq.Yds respectively. The colony Sant Nagar is an unauthorized colony stated to have been regularized on 13.2.1979.
2. It is stated in the petition that post-regularization, layout plan was prepared to show the various plots and other public utility sites. It is stated in the petition that plot No. 95-B and 95-A are clearly shown as residential plots in the layout plan
3. It is further stated in the petition that on 10.9.1981 fresh layout plan was sanctioned. In this plan also the two plots were shown as residential plots.
4. Post-regularization, for purposes of providing facilities, DDA levied development charges. Petitioners paid the same as per receipts annexed as 'Annexure-P.3' to the writ petition. A building each stands constructed on the two plots. The buildings are assessed to property tax. Property tax receipts as also receipts towards electricity charges, water consumption etc. have been annexed as 'Annexure-P.4' (Colly.) to the writ petition.
5. Grievance of the petitioners is that on 2.2.1993, officers of DDA came to an adjoining plot No. 94/1/2 and demolished the structure standing thereon. On enquiry, petitioners learnt that the respondent was intending to take over another 10 ft. of land and this would affect the petitioners. On the averments afore-noted, present petition was filed praying that the respondents be restrained from taking forcible possession of the plots belonging to the petitioners and in the alternative to direct the respndents to acquire the land, if at all needed, as per law before dis-possessing the petitioners.
6. Opposing the writ petition, case of DDA is that land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1280/873/1 and 1281/873/3/1-2, village Bahapur were acquired vide award No. 2038. Vide notification dated 31.10.1973, No. F.9(42) 72/LandB issued under Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 said acquired land was placed at the disposal of DDA. It is further stated that the two plots are a part of the acquired land and, therefore, petitioners have no right to possess the land. It is further averred that the colony in qustion, Sant Nagar, post regularization stands denotified as a development area and presently falls in the jurisdiction of the MCD. It is accordingly stated by DDA that MCD should be imp leaded as a respondent for the reason the area stands transferred toMCD for purposes of maintenance and control of complete activity.
7. In rejoinder, petitioners deny that the land comprised in the two plots falls in either of the two acquired khasras. It is further stated that before purchasing the plots, petitioners obtained the necessary clearance from the revenue authorities. IT is stated that the plots were carved out on land comprised in Khasra No. 189/150/1 Village Garhi Jharia Maria. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that owner of property No. 94-A, Sant Nagar had a similar problem. He filed a suit, registeredas suit No. 174/1993 in the court of Civil Judge, Delhi. Similar dispute of location was raised. Local Commissioner was appointed by the learned Civil Judge. The Local Commissioner carried out demarcation with the help of the revenue staff on 2.8.1995.
Officers of DDA were present. Disputed land in the said suit was demarcated and reflected in the plan prepared at spot. The said plan is stated to have been exhibited as Ex.C-1 by the learned Civil Judge. Relying upon the said plan Ex.C-1 and the santioned layout plan annexed as 'Annexure-P.2' to the writ petition, it is stated in the rejoinder that it is but evident that the two plots fall in village Garhi Jharia Maria.
8. Issue raised on the pleadings of the parties is short and crisp. Unfortunately, the same requires evidence in the form of demarcation at site.
9. Case of the petitioners is that the land comprised in the two plots falls in Khasra No. 189/150/1, Village Garhi Jharia Maria. DDA on the other hand contends that the two plots are on the acquired lands comprised in Khasra Nos.1280/873/1 and 1281/873/3/1-2, village Bahapur.
10. Dispute requires demarcation at site. It is difficult to co-relate Ex.C-1 with 'Annexure-P.2' for the reason it would require super-imposition of the layout plan on the Shajra. This court does not have any means to do so, as super-imposition oflayout on the Shajra requires preparation of the two on the same scale and same orientation. Admittedly Ex.C-1 is neither on the same scale nor on the same orientation as the layout plan 'Annexure-P.2'.
11. But that would not mean that DDA or for that matter MCD can come and demolish the structures without any prior notice and without prior adjudication of the dispute.
12. House-tax receipts and other receipts filed by the petitioners show existence of a building on the two plots since 1984. Petitioners have in addition, clearance from the revenue department showing that the two plots are comprised on part of land of Khasra No. 189/150/1 Village Garhi Jharia Maria. Valuable rights of the petitioners are involved.
13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of restraining DDA from taking possession of the two plots save and except by following the due process of law. Due process of law would require DDA to put the petitioners to notice and require the revenue officials to demarcate land comprised in Khasra Nos.1280/873/1 and 1281/873/3/1-2, village Bahapur for DDA lays title to said lands. Should the demarcation report reveal that the two plots are not on the acquired land, that would be the end of the matter.
Only if it is found that the two plots are on the acquired land then and then alone, subject to demarcation attaining finality can DDA re-possess the sites.
14. Petition disposed of as aforesaid.
15. No costs.
