Surender Mohan Rana & Anr. vs Sdm/Ra Sarasvati Vihar & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1912 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              W.P.(C) 13449-50/2005

                                            Date of decision : 06.05.2009
IN THE MATTER OF :

        SURENDER MOHAN RANA & ANR.                 ..... Petitioners
                     Through: Petitioner No. 1 in person.

                      versus

        SDM/RA SARASVATI VIHAR & ORS.             ..... Respondents
                      Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate with
                      Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate for R1 and R3.
                      Ms. Usha Saxena, Adv. for Mr. O.P. Saxena,
                      Advocate for MCD/R2.
                      Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate for R6.
                      Dr. Anurag Kumar Agarwal, Advocate with
                      Mr. Umesh Mishra, Advocate for R7 to R12.

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
        Judgment? No.

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?    No.

HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. When the matter was taken up for hearing in the pre-lunch

session, as petitioner No. 1, who appeared in person, stated that his counsel

was not available today, he was asked whether he needed accommodation

by grant of an adjournment. He, however, declined to take an adjournment

and instead submitted that he was ready to argue the matter on merits

himself. Arguments were thereafter addressed by petitioner No. 1 for over

one hour in the pre lunch session and the matter spilled over to the post-

lunch session for further arguments. Now, when the Court has assembled in

the post-lunch session, petitioner No. 1 seeks an adjournment on the ground

that he would like his counsel to argue the matter. His request is declined,

since when the matter was taken up, this option was given to him, which he

categorically refused to accept and insisted that the matter, being of the

year 2005, is required to be heard and disposed of today itself, irrespective

of his counsel's presence.

2. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter

alia for a twofold relief. The first relief sought by the petitioners is for

directions to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to restrain respondents No. 6 to 14

from raising illegal, unlawful and unauthorised construction/structures over

the agricultural land comprising in Khasra No. 71/2, 71/3/1 and 71/9

situated in the Revenue Estate of village Ghevra, Delhi. The second relief

sought by the petitioners is for directions to respondent No. 1, SDM/RA,

Sarasvati Vihar, to take a decision upon the matters remanded by the

learned Financial Commissioner, Delhi vide orders dated 21.05.1999.

3. As far as the second relief is concerned, if the petitioners

are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 1, despite

orders dated 21.05.1999 passed by the Financial Commissioner, remanding

certain matters back to him, their remedy lies before the learned Financial

Commissioner and not before this Court. Under the garb of seeking the

aforesaid relief, this Court cannot be permitted to be converted into an

executing court by the petitioners. Hence, while declining the said relief in

the present writ petition, leave is granted to the petitioners to approach the

appropriate forum for seeking implementation of the orders dated

21.05.1999 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Annexure P-4).

4. The second relief sought by the petitioners as contained in

prayer (1) of the writ petition, for directions to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to

restrain respondents No. 6 to 14 from raising illegal, unlawful and

unauthorised construction/structures on the land in question, has been dealt

with by the respondent No. 1 in his status report dated 02.02.2009. As per

the aforesaid status report, respondent No. 1 has submitted that the

proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954,

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), were initiated in respect of the land in

question. Vide order dated 01.01.2008, the ejectment orders were passed

and the land was directed to be vested in the Gaon Sabha. The aforesaid

order of vesting the land in the Gaon Sabha has been assailed by the

respondent No. 6 by filing an application under Appendix 6 Rule 14 of the

Act.

5. Pursuant to the vesting order, a warrant of possession is stated

to have been issued and executed on 05.09.2008, by taking possession of

the land. However, action could not be taken against the land of respondent

No. 6 since application for recalling was pending. It is stated that the

schedule for taking possession of the land of respondent No. 6 was fixed for

07.01.2009, but the warrants could not be executed as the respondent No. 6

sought 10 days time by submitting an undertaking. A fresh schedule for

taking over the possession of the land of the respondent No. 6 was fixed for

31.01.2009. However, on the eve of the said date, respondent No. 6 is

stated to have intimated that violations had been removed and the land had

been put back to agricultural use. It is further stated that in view of the

order dated 30.01.2009 passed in the present proceedings, on an application

filed by respondent No. 6 for directions, as the Revenue Assistant was given

liberty to deal with the pending application under Appendix 6 Rule 14 in

accordance with law, the said application shall be taken up and decided

immediately after the impeding General Elections.

6. A reference has also been made by the respondent No. 1 to the

status reports of the MCD and Delhi Police to the effect that the

unauthorised construction has been removed and the possession of the

entire land except that under the possession of respondent No. 6 has been

taken over and delivered to the Gaon Sabha. It is further stated that there

is no apprehension of commencement of non-agricultural use or

unauthorised construction and even in respect of the respondent No. 6, it

shall be ensured that during the pendency of adjudication of its application,

the land would not be put to non-agricultural use.

7. Certain submissions have been made by the respondent No. 1 in

the status report with regard to the relief sought by the petitioners in prayer

(2). However, for the reasons stated above, the same are not being taken

into consideration in the present proceedings and no observations on merits

are made in that regard as liberty has been given to the petitioners to seek

their remedies for implementation of the impugned orders dated 21.05.1999

passed by the Financial Commissioner by approaching the appropriate

forum. If the petitioners do so, then the respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty

to make submissions in response thereto, before the said forum.

8. In view of the aforesaid status report filed by the respondent No.

1 to the effect that the land in question is free from unauthorised

construction and the only issue left to be decided is in respect of land under

occupation of respondent No. 6, which it is stated shall be taken up and

decided after the impeding General Elections, the present writ petition is

disposed of with directions to the respondent No.1 to decide the pending

application of respondent No. 6 as expeditiously as possible and, preferably

within a period of six weeks from today whereafter, necessary action may be

taken in accordance with law, if necessary.

                                                       HIMA KOHLI,J
      MAY        06, 2009
      rkb