Delhi High Court
Resident Welfare Association & ... vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 16 September, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.2930/2007
% Date of Decision: 16.09.2009
Resident Welfare Association & Anr. .... Petitioners
Through Mr.Pratap Sahani, Advocate.
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Mr.Kapil Dutta, Advocate for the
respondent No.2.
Mr.Amiet Andlay, Advocate for the
respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
This is a petition by the Resident Welfare Association seeking
direction to the respondents, Delhi Development Authority, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and Commissioner of Police to remove the
encroachment and dispossess the encroachers from the M.M Road and
keep the public road for the use of passerby as notified by respondent
Nos.1 & 2.
The notices were issued to the respondents and pursuant thereto
a short affidavit was filed on behalf of Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Central District contending inter-alia that pursuant to the order dated
24th April, 2007 passed by this Court directing the respondents to meet
the residents and other office bearers of the petitioner association a
meeting was held and in the meeting it was decided that a joint action
team will carry out encroachment removal programme on 15th May,
2007 from the Motia Khan M.M.Road and it shall be made congestion
and encroachment free.
The affidavit dated 25th July, 2007 of Sh.Alok Kumar, Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Central District, Delhi was filed, thereafter,
contending that pursuant to the directions of this Court an
encroachment removal and demolition programme was carried out on
14th June, 2007 by a joint action team at service road from the western
side of DDA flats Motia Khan upto D.B.G.Road and in the process
encroachments by 40 small huts (jhuggis) were removed and the service
road had been made clear upto the backside of Hotel King Castle. An
action report dated 20th September, 2007 had also been filed on behalf
of Municipal Corporation of Delhi stating inter-alia that pursuant to the
encroachment removal action, all the pucca as well as temporary
encroachments from the area in dispute have been removed except two
workshops. It was further stipulated that the two workshops will also be
removed if found unauthorized after ascertaining the title of the lands of
these two properties by works department.
Pursuant to the encroachment removal programme undertaken
by the respondents another affidavit dated 2nd February, 2008 of
Sh.R.K.Pandey, Deputy Commissioner of Police was filed stipulating
that the meeting with the office bearers of Motia Khan Residents
Welfare Association was held and they were apprised of the action taken
by Delhi Traffic Police. The officials of the resident welfare association
were satisfied with the action taken by the traffic police for removal of
congestion from the said area. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi also
filed another status report dated 14th August, 2008 indicating that
inspection of property No.66, Motia Khan was conducted and the said
property was occupied by Sh.Mohan Lal who was stated to be in
possession since 1978. After further enquiry the respondents have
removed the property of Sh.Mohan Lal which was an encroachment.
The fact regarding the action taken against the property No.66 was
detailed in the status report of May, 2008.
In view of the various status reports and the photographs filed, it
is apparent that the encroachment of M.M.Road has already been
removed by the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, drawn the
attention of this Court to a photograph of the backside of the property
allegedly bearing No.66A and has contended that the property is
unauthorized and is an encroachment upon the said road. The learned
counsel for respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation of Delhi on
instructions, however, contends that the property has been constructed
pursuant to the sanction granted by Delhi Development Authority.
In the facts and circumstances, no further orders are required
and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the action already taken
by the respondents. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
September 16, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'
