Delhi High Court
Satish Chand Gupta And Anr. vs Mcd & Ors on 17 February, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 972/2012 and CM 2135/2012
Decided on: 17th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
SATISH CHAND GUPTA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Advocate
versus
MCD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shyel Trehan, Advocate for R-1 to R-3.
Ms. Shariq Mahmood, Advocate for R-4 and R-5.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia
for issuance of directions to respondents No.1, 3 and 5 to remove the
encroachment on public land outside premises No.2/2, 2/3, 2/4, Roop
Nagar, Delhi, and premises No.43-A, 28-E, 29-E, 42-E, D-176, Kamla Nagar,
Delhi, and other places surrounding the residence of the petitioners, i.e.,
premises No.2/2, Roop Nagar, Delhi.
2. Counsel for the petitioners states that respondents No.6 to 8 are
the brothers of the petitioners and all of them are residing in the same
premises, i.e., premises No.2/2, Roop Nagar, Delhi. He further states that
the petitioners have filed a suit for partition against respondents No.6 to 8 in
respect of premises No.2/2, Roop Nagar, Delhi, which is pending
adjudication on the original side of this Court. He contends that respondents
No.6 to 8 are running a factory in a part of the subject premises, by
installing an oil extracting machine and thus creating a nuisance in a
residential area.
3. Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/MCD, who appears on
advance copy, states that the present petition is misconceived and an
attempt on the part of the petitioners to settle their personal scores with
respondents No.6 to 8. She submits that the officers of the MCD have been
taking regular steps to remove the encroachment in the Kamla Nagar area,
particularly, premises No.2/2, 2/3, 2/4 as also 66/67-E, D-128, 173, 174,
175 and 176, which are situated in the market area. In support of the said
submission, she hands over copies of the letters dated 25.01.2012,
03.02.2012, 07.02.2012 and 08.02.2012 addressed by the MCD to the local
police. The same are taken on record.
4. Counsel for respondents No.4 and 5/Delhi Police states that upon
receipt of the aforesaid letters from the MCD, the beat officers of the area
have been keeping a strict vigil to clear the said area from encroachment.
He further supports the submission made by the counsel for respondents
No.1 to 3/MCD that this is a purely private lis between the petitioners and
respondents No.6 to 8, which is sought to be given a different colour by the
petitioners by claiming that the statutory authorities are not discharging
their duties.
5. As regards the claim of the petitioners that respondents No.6 to 8 are
running an oil extraction unit from the subject premises and a closure order
ought to be passed in that regard, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/MCD
hands over a copy of the letter dated 19.12.2011 addressed by MCD to NDPL
and DJB, informing the said authorities that respondent No.6 had been
unauthorisedly running an oil extraction unit from the subject premises and
calling upon the said departments to disconnect the power and water
supplies to the aforesaid unit with immediate effect. She states that after
issuance of the aforesaid letter, respondent No.6 had approached the MCD
and submitted a representation dated 28.12.2011 to the Factory Licensing
Department, MCD, undertaking therein that he would stop using the
premises in question for the purpose of running the oil extraction unit.
Alongwith the aforesaid representation dated 28.12.2011, respondent No.6
had also submitted an affidavit, undertaking inter alia that he would remove
the aforesaid oil extraction unit from the premises in question. Copies of the
aforesaid documents are handed over by learned counsel for MCD and taken
on record.
6. Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/MCD states that upon
conducting a recent inspection of the subject premises, it has been verified
that the oil extraction unit is no longer operating from the subject premises.
She states that all the aforesaid facts are well within the knowledge of the
petitioners, but they have intentionally suppressed this information from the
Court and have tried to paint a different picture on the strength of the
information gathered by them from the MCD under the Right to Information
Act and enclosed at page 68 of the paper book.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the counsels for
respondents No.1 to 3/MCD and respondents No.4 and 5/Delhi Police, this
Court is satisfied that respondents No.1 to 5 are taking regular and adequate
steps to remove unauthorized encroachment on the public land in Roop
Nagar and Kamla Nagar as prayed for in prayer (ii) of the writ petition. The
respondents No.1 to 3/MCD have also handed over relevant documents to
establish that the oil extraction unit is no longer functioning from premises
No.2/2, Roop Nagar. The fact is that the petitioners are actually targetting
their brothers, namely, respondents No.6 to 8 and not the other encroachers
in the area, which is apparent from a perusal of the memo of parties,
wherein the petitioners have chosen to implead only respondents No.6 to 8,
occupants of premises No.2/2, Roop Nagar, where they are residing along
with the petitioners, while refraining from impleading any of the other
owners/occupiers of the remaining seven premises, as mentioned in prayer
(ii) of the writ petition.
8. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court declines to entertain the
present petition, which is disposed of. However, respondents No.1 to 3/MCD
and respondents No.4 and 5/local police are directed to continue maintaining
a strict vigil of the area to ensure that there is no encroachment on public
land in the locality in question.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 17, 2012 JUDGE
rkb
