Delhi High Court
Hari Singh vs Gov T. Of Nct And Ors on 14 October, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th October, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 7470/2011
HARI SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Surat Singh & Mr. Sunil Mund,
Advs.
Versus
GOV T. OF NCT AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma & Mr. Mukesh
Kumar, Advs. for R-2.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Mohit
Rao Jadhav, Adv. for R-3.
Mr. S.M. Zulfiqar Alam, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
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 petition impugns the action on 08.09.2011of the respondent No.2
DDA of dispossessing the petitioner from the land in his possession in
Khasra No.393 in village Nasirpur, Delhi.
2. The petitioner claims, that his father had filed an application under
Section 74(4) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 for declaration of his
Bhoomidari rights in the said land; the said application was dismissed by the
Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) on 14.12.2005. The petitioner claims to
have preferred an appeal against the said order to the Deputy Commissioner
and which appeal is stated to be still pending and listed next on 19.10.2011.
The petitioner further claims that there is an interim order of status quo in
the said appeal.
3. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the dispossession
of the petitioner is in violation of the order of status quo. The petitioner
claim the relief of restraining the respondent No.2 DDA from interfering
with the possession of the petitioner and also claims damages from the
respondent No.2 DDA. Mandamus is also sought to initiate proceedings
against the erring officials of the respondent No.2 DDA.
4. The counsel for the petitioner admits that the respondent No.2 DDA is
not a party to the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. He however
contends that since the respondent No.2 DDA is also a government
authority, it ought to have respected the order of status quo. Reliance is also
placed on the order dated 11.08.2004 in W.P.(C) No.13061-66/2004 filed
not by the petitioner or his father but by certain other persons stated to be
similarly situated as the petitioner, and in which order it was observed that
the order of the Block Development Officer, of handing over possession of
the land which was subject matter of proceedings under Section 74(4) of the
Act, to the respondent No.2 DDA was non est and void. The counsel for the
petitioner contends that since the position of the petitioner is identical, the
delivery of possession of the land in occupation of the petitioner also, to the
respondent No.2 DDA is non est and void and the respondent No.2 DDA
could not have thus taken any action for dispossession of the petitioner.
5. Considering the entirety of the facts, the appropriate course in the
present petition appears to be to direct time bound disposal of the appeal
preferred by the petitioner. If the appeal is decided in favour of the
petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to be put back into possession of
the land.
6. The counsel for the respondent No.2 DDA appearing on advance
notice opposes the later of the aforesaid directions. He contends that the
respondent No.2 DDA being not a party to the appeal cannot be bound by
the order therein and if at all the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, having
been already dispossessed, would be required to file a suit for re-possession
against the respondent No.2 DDA.
7. The aforesaid cannot be accepted. The respondent No.2 DDA is
claiming title to the property through the authority against whom the
petitioner / his father have been litigating. If the petitioner succeeds in the
appeal and is found to be entitled to Bhoomidari rights in the land, he cannot
be compelled to thereafter sue for possession when he has been admittedly
dispossessed during the pendency of the proceedings. The observation in
the order dated 11.08.2004 (supra) though not in a petition filed by the
petitioner but is in an identical factual situation. The only liberty which can
be granted to the respondent No.2 DDA is that if desirous of opposing the
appeal of the petitioner, to participate in the appeal proceedings.
8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The Deputy Commissioner (South-West) before which the
appeal preferred by the petitioner is stated to be pending and
listed next on 19.10.2011 is directed to decide the said appeal
latest by 20.12.2011. The respondent No.2 DDA, if so desires
may participate in the said appeal hearing;
(ii) If the appeal is decided in favour of the petitioner, the
respondent No.2 DDA to, on or before 20.01.2012 and subject
to further orders if any in proceedings against the order of the
Deputy Commissioner, put the petitioner back into possession
of the land from which the petitioner has been dispossessed;
(iii) Needless to state that if the order of the Deputy Commissioner
is against the petitioner, the petitioner would not be entitled to
be so put back into possession but would be entitled to take his
remedies against the order;
(iv) As far as the claim of the petitioner for initiating inquiry against
the officials the respondent No.2 DDA and for damages against
the respondent No.2 DDA is concerned, no merit is found
therein, the petitioner having chosen not to take any other order
against the respondent No.2 DDA inspite of knowledge of the
possession having been transferred to the respondent No.2
DDA and when the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier writ
petition being W.P.(C) No. 447/2011 preferred by him.
No order as to costs.
Dasti.
CM No.16949/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 14, 2011
'gsr'
