Anil Tyagi vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 6284 Del

$~30
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of Decision: 21.12.2011


+LPA 1082/2011, CM APPL. 23305/2011 & CM APPL. 23304/2011

ANIL TYAGI                                                  .....APPELLANT
                       Through:           Mr. N.P. Singh, Advocate.

                      Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS                        ..... RESPONDENT

Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL):

1. It is not in dispute that the land in question has already been acquired.

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in this

behalf was passed way back on 13th November, 1959, the declaration under

Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18th March, 1966 and the award was

passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 12th June, 1969. Inspite

thereof, the petitioner is illegally occupying the subject premises, in these

circumstances, orders dated 21.11.2011 have been passed by the

respondent/DDA calling upon the petitioner to remove his belongings from

the said premises i.e. S-530 School Block-II, Shakarpur, Delhi within 15

days from the passing of the order.

2. The appellant challenged this order by filing writ petition which has

been dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine vide impugned order

dated 8.12.2011. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, noted that it was the

third round of litigation in respect of the same premises. The first writ

petition i.e. W.P.(C)13426-27/2005 was filed by the petitioner and his

brother Shri Sanjeev Tyagi. In that writ petition, the grievance was that the

MCD was proposing to take demolition and sealing action in respect of this

very premises. This writ petition was disposed of on 16.2.2010 on the

statement of counsel for the DDA that the land in question had been

acquired by the DDA by virtue of an award. This was disputed by the

petitioner. While disposing of the petition, direction was given to the

petitioner to approach the DDA alongwith necessary documents to satisfy

the DDA with regard to their right and status over the land and the DDA

was also directed to dispose of such representation within a period of six

weeks. The appellant thereafter submitted representation which was

considered and order dated 8.4.2011 was passed thereupon by the Assistant

Director, DDA stating that the land in question had been acquired,

possessed and placed at the disposal of the DDA vide Award No. 07/1969.

The appellant and his brother were called upon to remove the unauthorized

construction. Second writ petition was filed challenging the order dated

8.4.2011 (W.P. 3944/2011). In this writ petition, prayer was made to grant

another personal hearing (though one was granted at the time of passing of

order dated 8.4.2011 as well) and permission to the appellant and his brother

to place on record all the relevant documents before the DDA for it to pass a

reasoned order. This request was acceded to and orders dated 1.6.2011 were

passed directing the DDA to grant another opportunity. Though in the mean

time parties were directed to maintain status quo, consequently, order was

also passed to this effect that in case adverse order is passed against the

appellant and his brother, the occupants would remove their belongings

within a period of two week from the date of passing of the order. The

appellant and his brother were called upon to give an undertaking in terms

of the said order which they had filed in the Court.

3. It is this representation filed by the appellant pursuant to the aforesaid

order which had now been dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.11.2011

passed by the DDA. We may record here that the appellant had now raised

the contention that even when the land in question had been acquired, the

colony in which this land is situated itself was directed to be regularized

and it was decided that construction carried out in the said colony up to the

year 1977 would also be regularized by the DDA as per the resolution

passed by the Ministry of Works and Housing, Government of India. On

this premise, the submission of the appellant was that the possession of the

premises could not be taken by the DDA as it was protected by the said

resolution. In the orders dated 21.11.2011, the DDA specifically dealt with

this contention and negatived the same observing that though School

Block, Shakarpur Complex, was regularized vide resolution No. 107B,

however, the said resolution clearly mentions that any construction

including the regularization plan which had come up for land owned by the

DDA, MCD and Government of India could not be considered as part of

the approved plan and would be deleted. The DDA has also recorded in the

said order that the premises in question was a part of facilities and as such

is a part of the number of lay out plan available in the record of the DDA

and the same was dealt with shown to all the concerned parties in the course

of the hearing. This order also records that the appellant had purchased the

land in question in the year 1986 as per the documents produced by him

which was much after the acquisition of the land and notification which was

issued on 16.2.1972 under Section 22 (1) of the Delhi Development Act.

Taking note of the aforesaid facts the learned Single Judge has dismissed

the writ petition observing that there is no force in the contention of the

appellant and the order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or

perversity therein which would require interference by this Court in

judicial review.

4. Para 7 of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge may be

quoted at this stage:-

"This Court has examined the order dated 21.11.2011. A perusal thereof shows that there is no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity therein which requires interference by this Court in judicial review. It is neither disputed that the land in question was acquired vide Award No.7/1969, nor is it the case of the petitioner that the said Award was challenged by him or his brother. The grievance raised by the petitioner that the subject land if acquired can only be treated as Nazul land by the respondent/DDA and that it cannot be used for any other purpose, cannot be a subject matter of consideration in the present proceeding as the question to be considered here is whether the possession of the petitioner in the subject land is legal and valid. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the undertaking given by the petitioner and his brother, as recorded in the order dated 01.06.2011 passed in W.P.(C)

3944/2011 that in the event of an adverse order being passed, both of them would vacate the subject land within two weeks, while directing the petitioner to make compliances in terms of the aforesaid undertaking, the present petition is dismissed in limine as being devoid of merits alongwith the pending application."

5. Argument before us remains the same which was advanced before the

DDA as well as before the learned Single Judge namely the colony itself is

directed to be regularized and therefore the appellant is protected.

6. We do not find any force in this contention for the reasons noted by

the learned Single Judge. Nothing could be argued which could shake the

foundation of a well reasoned order passed in the writ petition. Finding no

merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed.

7. No orders as to costs.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

(RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW) JUDGE

DECEMBER 21, 2011 skb