Surendra Singh vs Competent Authority (Delhi Land)
2010 Latest Caselaw 1502 Del

07

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 14446/2006

      SURENDRA SINGH                   ..... Petitioner
                             Through      Mr. Amit Tyagi, Adv.

                    versus

      COMPETENT AUTHORTY (DELHI LAND .... Respondent
                       Through     Mr. Som Dutt Kaushik, Adv. for the
                                   respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
                                   Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, Adv. for the
                                   respondent Nos. 3 to 9.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
          ORDER

% 17.03.2010

Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not want to

implead the legal heirs of the respondent No.8 as parties to the present writ

petition and the respondent No.8 can be deleted from the array of parties. The

respondent No.8 is deleted from the array of parties.

The writ petition is vague and is bereft of material details and particulars.

Allegations have been made that the community land as demarcated in the

partition scheme has not been properly re-partitioned and possession has not

been given. The respondent authorities in the counter affidavit have controverted

and denied the said allegations. In the counter affidavit it is stated that after

consolidation, Gaon Sabha land in the revenue estate of Raghavpur aggregated to

321 bigha and 3 biswa is allotted in the manner indicated in the said paragraph. It

is further stated that the said allocations were duly published and objections were invited, but no objection was filed within the statutory limit.

Even otherwise in case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the

consolidation scheme, he should approach the Financial Commissioner under

Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of

Fragmentation) Act, 1948. In case there is any encroachment etc. after the

consolidation scheme has been implemented and re-partition has taken place,

then the petitioner has remedy under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. It is

clarified that this Court has not made any observations of merits and condoned

any default or encroachment. The respondent authorities are duty bound to take

action in accordance with law in case there is any encroachment on Gaon Sabha

land.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

MARCH 17, 2010 NA/P