Bharat Lal vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 725 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                    Date of Order: 7th February, 2011

+ W.P.(Crl.) No. 1671/2010
%                                                                      07.02.2011

        Bharat Lal                                              ... Petitioner
                                 Through: Mr. Kamlesh Jha, Advocate

                Versus


        The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.                  ... Respondents
                          Through: Mr. Akshay Bipin, ASC with
                          SI, Mr. Zora Singh PS Anand Parbat
                          Mr. Rajneesh Bhaskar, Advocate for R-10 to 16


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORDER (ORAL)

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that

the Court should direct the investigation into the subject matter of petition by

an independent agency, preferably CBI, and should direct police officials to

take action against other respondents who were trying to unlawfully possess

the property of the petitioner.

The petitioner is a resident of jhuggi basti called Punjabi Basti,

Anand Parbat situated on government land. Alongside the jhuggi of petitioner

there is some vacant land and on the other side, there is jhuggi of Dilip

respondent no. 12. Respondents No. 10, 11 & 13 are family members of Dilip

and respondents no. 14 & 15 are other residents of jhuggi basti. As per the

facts revealed from the record and documents, the petitioner tried to take

possession of this land belonging to DDA and it was objected by respondent

no. 12. The police was called and thereafter started a series of complaint

made by the petitioner and his wife and threats given to the neighbours i.e.

Dilip and others. The petitioner alleged that he was injured in one of the

incidents. He went to hospital for getting his MLC done in hospital. The

doctor conducting MLC gave opinion that it was a self-inflected injury. PCR

was called at the spot 2-3 times because of the quarrel over issue of

possession of this vacant land and police after verification concluded that it

was the 'petitioner' who was trying to encroach upon DDA land. The

petitioner has already filed a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before

the MM. He has also filed a Civil Suit.

Under these circumstances, I find that this petition filed by the

petitioner was not maintainable and the petitioner was misusing the process

of law in order to build up pressure for purpose of encroaching upon DDA

land/government land. The petition is hereby dismissed being a frivolous

petition.

February 07, 2011                         SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn