Satbir Singh Sehrawat & Ors. vs Airport Authority Of India & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 506 Del

$~
3
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +     LPA No.135/2010

%                          Date of decision: 24th January, 2012

SATBIR SINGH SEHRAWAT & ORS.          ..... Appellants
               Through : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for
                         Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate, Advocate.


                  versus

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.    ..... Respondents
              Through : Mr.    Digvijay     Rai,  Advocate          for
                         respondent no.1.
                         Mr.   P.K.     Mittal,   Advocate          for
                         respondent no.2/DDA.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks adjournment on the

ground that Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate has to argue the matter and he

is busy in another matter. The matter had been passed over once.

After pass over Mr. R.K.Saini Advocate is again not present. In the

present facts and circumstances and considering the orders already

passed in this Court, there is no sufficient ground for adjourning the

matter today.

2. Learned counsel who appears for the appellant states that he

also does not have any instruction in the matter and in respect of the

order passed by this Court on 29th July, 2010.

3. On 29th July, 2010, learned counsel for respondent no.1 had

submitted that the appeal has been rendered infructuous as the

residents of Nangal Dewat including the appellants have already been

rehabilitated in Village Rangpuri and the possession of land has

already been taken over and the villagers have constructed their

houses.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants on 29th July, 2010 had

contended on that day that he did not have any instructions whether

the appellants have constructed the houses on the land which was

allotted to them.

5. It has not been disclosed as to what has been done by the

appellants on the lands which had been allotted to them. The learned

counsel for the appellants is unable to give any answer to any of the

queries and questions raised by this Court in respect of the matter.

6. The counsel for the respondents had contended that after taking

the possession of the lands, the appellants have constructed the

houses. If that be so then the appellants are not entitled for change of

the lands which had been allotted to them, possession of which was

taken by them and properties constructed thereon.

7. The learned Single Judge by order dated 21.10.2009, which is

impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal had also held that in view of

subsequent developments, the writ petition had been rendered

infructuous and was disposed of.

8. In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the

order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st October, 2009 who had

dismissed the writ petition on account of subsequent development

entailing the writ becoming infructuous.

9. The LPA is therefore, without any merit and it is also dismissed.

Parties are however, left to bear their own costs.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

J.R. MIDHA, J JANUARY 24, 2012 aj