Delhi High Court
Narender Kumar Nagpal & Anr vs Dda & Ors on 23 March, 2012
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : March 13, 2012
Pronounced on: March 23, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 4831/2005
NARENDER KUMAR NAGPAL & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal and Mr. Ateev
Mathur, Advocates.
versus
DDA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 5914/2007
JAGDISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal and Mr. Ateev
Mathur, Advocates.
versus
D.D.A. & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
%
ORDER
23.03.2012
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, above
captioned two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed
of vide this common order as petitioners claim protection of The
National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second
Act, 2011 in respect of their property No.25, 25/1 and 25/2, in Village
Lado Sarai Extension, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as subject land) as
it is stated that this unauthorised colony is enlisted in the list of 1071
W.P. (C) No.4381/2005 & 5914/2007 Page 1
unauthorised colonies which are to be considered for regularization
under the Regularisation Policy of the respondents.
2. The response of the respondents is that the subject land was
acquired vide Award No.36/80-81 for planned development of Delhi but
its physical possession was not handed over to DDA being built up and
because of the stay in W.P.(C) No. 2965/2002 which was dismissed on
12th May, 2003 and Special Leave Petition against the same was also
dismissed on 3rd January, 2005. In the said writ petition, petitioners had
challenged the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land
which falls in Lado Sarai, and not in Lado Sarai Extension, which of
course, is subject matter of the process of regularization. As per the
respondents, the subject land comes within the Heritage Zone and is to
be developed as an Archeological park at Mehrauli, New Delhi. It is
categorically denied by respondents in their counter Affidavit that the
subject land forms part of any unauthorized colony which is due for
regularization.
3. In terms of the interim directions issued by this Court, spot
inspection was carried out by the respondents and the Inspection Report
of 28th March, 2008 (Annexure-I) has been filed alongwith the
Additional Affidavit of the respondents.
4. It is evident from the Inspection Report (Annexure-I) that the
subject land is acquired land under control of respondent-DDA and is
not part of unauthorized colony of Lado Sarai Extension. It is relevant to
note that the site inspection was done by the respondent-DDA as per the
plan filed by the Residents Welfare Association of Lado Sarai
Extension. All that has been stated by the petitioners is that the said
inspection was done behind the back of the petitioners.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material on record and the decisions cited, I find that what
W.P. (C) No.4381/2005 & 5914/2007 Page 2
really falls for consideration in this matter is as to whether the subject
land falls in Lado Sarai or Lado Sarai Extension. If the subject land falls
in Lado Sarai Extension, then certainly the petitioners are entitled to
protection under The National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special
Provisions) Second Act, 2011 and in view of the decisions in WP(C) No.
6425/1998 Shri Mange Ram & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors and
Harijan Kalyan Samiti Regd. & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
167 (2010) Delhi Law Times 368, status quo has to be maintained till
issue of regularization in respect of Lado Sarai Extension is decided.
6. What transpires from the perusal of the material on record is that
the affidavit filed by petitioner - Narender Kumar in support of the writ
petition gives his address as 25, Lado Sarai, Delhi. Pertinently, he does
not state that he is residing at Lado Sarai Extension, although he claims
to be residing in the subject premises, which has been described to be in
Lado Sarai Extension. Not only this, MCD property tax receipt
(Annexure P-4) on record also reveals that the subject property has been
described as 25, Lado Sarai and not Lado Sarai Extension. Similarly
Property No.25/2 i.e., subject property is also described as being in Lado
Sarai and not in Lado Sarai Extension. Mutation of the subject property
i.e. 25, 25/2, Lado Sarai is also in the name of the petitioner - Narender
Kumar as is evident from Annexure P-4 to this petition. There is no
document on record, which would describe the subject property as being
in Lado Sarai Extension. Voter Identification Card or Ration Card or any
other documentary proof is not on record to indicate that the subject
property is in Lado Sarai Extension.
7. Similarly, affidavit filed alongwith the writ petition of Jagdish
Kumar, discloses his address to be of 25/1, Lado Sarai and not of Lado
Sarai Extension. Even petitioner-Jagdish Kumar has not placed on
record any documentary proof like Ration card, Voter ID Card, Passport,
W.P. (C) No.4381/2005 & 5914/2007 Page 3
etc., to indicate that the subject land is in Lado Sarai Extension.
8. Even if the Inspection Report (Annexure-I) is excluded from
consideration, still it becomes evident from the counter affidavit of the
respondents that the subject property in Municipal No.25, 25/1 and 25/2,
falls in Khasra No.689/533/199/2 min (0-18) of Village Lado Sarai,
New Delhi.
9. On the direction of this Court, respondent's counsel had placed on
record copy of the Award No.36/80-81, which was unsuccessfully
challenged in the first round of litigation by the petitioners. This was
done just to obtain satisfaction that the land of Khasra No.689/533/199/2
min measuring 0-18 biswas, i.e., the subject land was the subject matter
of acquisition of Village Lado Sarai.
10. Upon perusal of the aforesaid Award, it becomes crystal clear that
the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit is well
justified. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the subject land falls in
Village Lado Sarai which stood acquired and the challenge to the said
acquisition by the petitioners has already failed. Therefore, now the
petitioners cannot succeed in the second round of litigation by projecting
that the subject land does not fall in Lado Sarai but falls in Lado Sarai
Extension, which is a subject matter of regularization process.
11. Resultantly, finding no substance in these two petitions, I dismiss
them with no orders as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
March 23, 2012
pkb
W.P. (C) No.4381/2005 & 5914/2007 Page 4
