Kuldeep Singh vs Dda
2011 Latest Caselaw 3528 Del

10.
$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 8444/2008

      KULDEEP SINGH                                        ..... Petitioner
                   Through:           Mr. A.K. Sen, Adv.

                                     versus
      DDA                                               ..... Respondent
                         Through:     Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

                                 ORDER

% 25.07.2011

1. The petitioner seeks mandamus to the respondent DDA to execute Lease Deed in his favour in respect of land/property in his possession in the Revenue Estate of Village Kishan Garh, Mehrauli, New Delhi in accordance with the Policy framed in the year 1969 by the Chief Commissioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent DDA has for wrongful reason recorded in the order dated 9th February, 2007 rejected the representation of the petitioner for execution of the Lease Deed.

2. In the counter affidavit though it is admitted that there was a proposal in 1969 to regularize the said colony and to execute Lease Deeds in favour of persons as per the survey conducted but the admitted position is that in pursuance to the said proposal no Lease Deeds in favour of any person were executed. The counsel for the respondent DDA states that since then the proposal has also been effectively abandoned and the said colony is one of the unauthorized colonies to be dealt in accordance with 2008 Regulations.

1/-

3. The counsel for the petitioner also does not controvert that the claim in the writ petition is solely on the basis of said proposal of 1969; it is also not controverted that the fate of the said colony will now have to be determined in accordance with the 2008 Regulations. He however controverts the findings in the order dated 9th February, 2007 which according to him prejudices his case.

4. I am of the opinion that the findings in the said order, being in pursuance to the proposal of 1969 which has been effectively abandoned, are of no avail. Thus need is not felt to adjudicate the said challenge by the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent also states that irrespective of the order dated 9 th February, 2007, the claims of the petitioner and the colony for regularization are to be governed in accordance with the 2008 Regulations.

5. Thus the petition is disposed of with clarification that the rights of the petitioner would be determined in accordance with 2008 Regulations and/or amendments/modification thereof and if at all any of the findings in the order dated 9th February, 2007 affect the rights and claims if any of the petitioner under 2008 Regulations, the parties would not be bound by the said findings and would be entitled to agitate their respective cases afresh.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J

JULY 25, 2011 pp..

2/-

\