Delhi High Court
Indraprastha Vishwa Hindu ... vs Union Of India & Others on 12 January, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice
19.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1512/1984
INDRAPRASTHA VISHWA HINDU PERISHAD & ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Anil Grover, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Atul Nanda & Ms. Sugandha,
Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Advocate for Ms.
Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA.
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed & Ms. Naghma Imtiaz,
Advocates for respondent No. 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 12.01.2011
By this writ petition, report under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have made the following
prayers:-
" In view of the aforesaid facts and in
the interest of justice, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously
pleased to issue a write(sic) of prohibition
prohibiting the respondents 1 to 3 from
implementing or giving effect to the office
order/letter/notification No. J.20011/4/74. 1-
II Govt. of India, Ministry of Works and
Housing dated 27.3.1984 marked as
annexure I and/or implementing or giving
effect to the recommendations of the Burney
Committee and a writ of certiorari quashing
the said office order/letter/notification and
directions contained in annexure I and a writ
of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to
3 not to transfer or dispose off the properties
mentioned in Annexure-I to the respondent
No. 4 in any manner whatsoever and any
other writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court deems just and fit in the
circumstances of the case. The cost of the
writ petition be also allowed."
2. When this matter was listed on 1st June, 1984, a Division Bench
of this Court passed the following order:-
" CW 1512/84
Rule.
CM 2045/84
Notice in C.M. for 18.7.1984. In the
meantime, status quo regarding the property
should be maintained and possession should
be retained by the Government. If lease
deeds have not yet been executed these
should not be executed. Dasti."
3. Thereafter, the said order continued and eventually it was made
absolute on 7th January, 1985. It is agreed at the Bar that the said
order has not been vacated. It is also accepted at the Bar that no lease
deed has been executed.
4. This Court on 26th August, 2010 had passed the following
order:-
" Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned
Additional Solicitor General has submitted
that the Union of India is likely to take a
policy decision within a period of four
weeks. It is submitted by him that if a
policy decision comes then there would be a
possibility that the controversy may be put
to rest.
Be that as it may, if a policy comes
into existence, there can be debate in that
regard on the next date of hearing.
List on 6th October, 2010."
5. On 6th October, 2010, the following order came to be passed:-
" It is submitted by learned ASG that
parties concerned are looking into the
matter.
In view of the aforesaid, as prayed,
matter be listed on 19.1.2011. Counsel for
the petitioner has no objection."
6. On perusal of the orders passed and the stand taken, we are of
the considered opinion that the Union of India is required to consider
the matter. Let the Union of India re-look at the matter and take a
decision within six months form today. Till then, the interim order
passed by this Court on 1st June, 1984 shall remain in force. Needless
to say when we have directed that the Union of India shall have a fresh
look into the matter, it shall keep in view the law in praesenti and the
factual position. All other issues and contentions are left open.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed
of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 12, 2011
VKR
