Delhi High Court
Jagwanti vs Lt. Governor Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 24 July, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 16.07.2013
Judgment pronounced on : 24.07.2013
+ W.P.(C) 6065/2010
JAGWANTI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anand Yadav with Ms. Anita
Tomar, Advs.
Versus
LT. GOVERNOR NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through Ms. Shawana Bari for Mr. Rajiv
Nanda, Advs. for respondents no.1
to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J.
The petitioner claims to be the owner of land measuring 1 bigha
and 8 biswas out of Khasra No.78/9 min. (0-12) and Khasra no.78/10 min
(0-16) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ladpur, Delhi. The said
Khasras are stated to be on the village phirni. According to the petitioner,
he is using the said land by constructing a dwelling house and for other
purposes, required in the rural areas. According to the petitioner, if
village phirni/ laldora is extended in the consolidation proceedings of the
aforesaid village, these khasras would be part of the extended
abadi/laldora, they being adjacent to the village phirni. It is alleged that
the respondents are contemplating demolition of the structures raised by
the villagers including the structure raised by the petitioner in Khasra
No.78/9 min. (0-12) and Khasra no.78/10 min (0-16) situated in the
Revenue Estate of Village Ladpur, Delhi. The petitioner is accordingly
seeking a direction to carry out the consolidation of holdings in Village
Ladpur, under the provisions of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, in a time-bound manner with the
direction to extend the abadi/ laldora of the village. She is also seeking
an order restraining the respondents from demolishing any structure in
Khasra No.78/9 min. (0-12) and Khasra no.78/10 min (0-16) situated in
the Revenue Estate of Village Ladpur, Delhi.
2. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the
consolidation proceedings started in Village Kanjhawala in the year 1997
are still going on and it would not be prudent to take up consolidation of
any more villages till the said consolidation is complete. It is further
stated that survey of Village Ladpur is under process to identify the
encroachment of Gaon Sabha Land. It is also stated in the counter-
affidavit that the respondents have carried out demolition only if the
unauthorized construction is attempted by the colonizers / unscrupulous
persons to cut plots/ colonies on the agricultural land illegally and
without any authority of law. It is also stated that the bhuimdar can
construct the dwelling unit/ house, on the agricultural land, with the prior
permission of the concerned authorities. It is stated that the authorities
have no intention of carrying on demolition of construction of the
petitioner in Khasra No.78/9 min. (0-12) and Khasra no.78/10 min (0-16)
situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ladpur, Delhi in near future
without following due process of law.
3. Two prayers have been made in this petition, the first being to
carry out the consolidation of holdings in Village Ladpur and the other
being to restrain the respondents from demolishing the structure and
construction of the petitioner in Khasra No.78/9 min. (0-12) and Khasra
no.78/10 min (0-16) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ladpur,
Delhi. As regards the first prayer, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has failed to bring to my notice any statutory provision requiring the
respondents to carry out periodical consolidation proceedings in the
villages. If the respondents do not have the requisite infrastructure to
carry out consolidation proceedings, and there is no statutory requirement
to undertake such an exercise, after a particular time period, direction to
undertake consolidation proceedings in the particular village will not be
justified. If such a direction is given, there may be several other writ
petitions seeking commencement of consolidation in other villages and
the respondents in the absence of infrastructure, cannot simultaneously
carry out consolidation proceedings in all those villages. No direction for
starting consolidation proceedings in this particular village can be given
by this court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing
referred to the decision of this Court dated 3.2.2012 in Ranbir Singh and
others versus Lt. Governor NCT of Delhi and others [W.P(C)
No.879/2012]. In the above referred decision, the grievance of the
petitioners before this Court was that the consolidation proceedings
which had commenced in Village Daryapur Kalan in the year 1988 were
not being concluded. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents
brought it to the notice of the court that a direction for conclusion of the
consolidation proceedings expeditiously had already been given by this
Court in another writ petition. The order does not indicate as to what was
the second prayer made in the writ petition but the court was of the view
that said prayer would be taken care of when the consolidation
proceedings stand concluded and in any case the petitioner had remedy
under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of
Fragmentation) Act, 1948 available to him. This judgment, therefore,
does not help the petitioner in any manner.
As regards, the construction alleged to have been carried out by the
petitioner in the aforesaid Khasras, I find that the petitioner has not filed
either the site plan or any photograph showing the construction existing
on the said land. The case of the respondents is that they are carrying out
demolition action only in those cases where unauthorized colonization is
indulged and they have no intention to demolish the dwelling units
constructed by the land owners for their self use. In absence of any plan
or photograph, it cannot be known whether the petitioner has constructed
only a dwelling unit for his personal use or some kind of colonization is
being attempted by him, either himself or in collaboration with others.
However, considering the unequivocal stand taken by the respondents
that they do not propose to demolish the dwelling unit constructed by the
land owners for their personal use, no order in this regard is felt
necessary.
The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
V.K.JAIN, J
JULY 24, 2013/rd
