Samiuddin And Others vs Executive Engineer And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3551 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of decision: 26th July, 2011

+                           W.P.(C) 10579/2005

       SAMIUDDIN AND OTHERS                  ..... Petitioners
                   Through: Mr. Shiv P. Pandey, Ms. Rashmi
                            Pandey & Mr. Mohd. Sajid, Adv.

                                   versus

    EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND OTHERS          ..... Respondents
                 Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may
       be allowed to see the judgment?                    Not necessary.

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?             Not necessary.

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported            Not necessary.
       in the Digest?


RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The twelve petitioners have filed this writ petition impugning the

notice dated 27th May, 2005 of the Ziledar-I, Head Works Deptt., Agra

Canal, Okhla, New Delhi notifying the persons residing unauthorisedly

on the land bearing Khasra No.207, Village Okhla, New Delhi Agra

Canal that the said land belongs to the Irrigation Deptt. Govt. of U.P. and

the said persons should remove their goods and malba from the said land

within a month failing which the said land would be vacated with the help

of Police Force.

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that their houses do not fall in

Khasra No.207 but they were being sought to be dispossessed in

pursuance to the notice aforesaid. They, thus sought to restrain the

respondents from dispossessing the petitioners on the pretext of clearing

the canal land bearing Khasra No.207.

3. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 12th July,

2005 which was made absolute on 24th November, 2005, dispossession of

the petitioners stayed.

4. Vide order dated 5th March, 2010, the SDM concerned was directed

to prepare rough sketch indicating the exact location of the houses of the

petitioners and the khasra numbers in which they are located. A report

has been submitted under the signatures of Halqa Patwari, Field

Kanungo, Nayab Tehsildar and Tehsildar to the effect that the houses of

the petitioners and others exist in Khasra No.207 i.e. the Agra Canal

Land. Though the petitioners preferred objections to the said report but on

2nd May, 2011 withdrew the same. However it is informed that it was the

contention of the counsel for the petitioners on that date that the houses of

the petitioners, as per the dimensions of Khasra No.207 given by the

respondent no.2 in his counter affidavit, were not in Khasra No.207. The

counsel for the respondent no.2 had then sought time to file an additional

affidavit.

5. No additional affidavit has been filed. The counsel for the

respondents seeks further time to file the same.

6. However in the aforesaid state of affairs, need is not felt to adjourn

the matter or to grant any further opportunity for filing the additional

affidavit.

7. The demarcation was ordered by this Court in view of converse

claims of the petitioners, of their houses being not in Khasra No.207, and

of the respondents, of the petitioners being in occupation of Khasra

No.207. The demarcation report to which there are no objections now has

found the petitioners in occupation of Khasra No.207. The counsel for the

petitioners today also contends that as per the counter affidavit of

respondent no.2, the houses of petitioners are not in Khasra No.207.

However, notwithstanding the said counter affidavit, this Court had

deemed it appropriate to have the land demarcated. The demarcation

report is against the petitioners. There is nothing else before this Court to

suggest that the houses of petitioners are on any other land. The

petitioners thus cannot be granted any relief in this petition.

8. The counsel for the petitioners at this stage states that the houses of

the twelve petitioners are situated in a full-fledged colony which though

unauthorized, has been granted Provisional Certificate of Regularization

and regularization whereof is under consideration. The counsel is

however unable to state whether in the application for Provisional

Certificate of Regularization and the documents filed therewith, reference

has been made to Khasra No.207 or not and/or as to how the boundaries

of the colony have been described.

9. If at all the houses of the petitioners are situated in an unauthorized

colony which has been issued a Provisional Certificate of Regularization,

then the same is to be dealt with as per the Regulations for Regularization

of Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi, 2008.

10. In view of the aforesaid, no declaration even, as claimed of the

petitioners being not in occupation of Khasra No.207 can be made in this

petition.

11. The counsel for the petitioners at this stage states that the

petitioners desire to file a suit to have the aforesaid disputed questions of

fact adjudicated and seeks extension of the interim order in force in this

petition for a period of three months to enable the petitioners to take

appropriate remedies. The counsel for the respondent has been heard on

the said aspect. Considering that the interim order has remained in force

since the year 2005, it is deemed expedient to accede to the request. It is

directed that no action for forceful dispossession be taken against the

petitioners till 30th October, 2011.

12. The petition is therefore dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to

take appropriate remedy for declaration of their title if any and to the

respondents to take over possession of the land, if so entitled to, but only

after 30th October, 2011 unless there is stay from any other fora. No

order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JULY 26, 2011 pp..