Ankur Muterja vs Public Grievance Commission And ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 3187 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of Decision: 24.07.2013

+      W.P.(C) 4641/2013

       ANKUR MUTERJA                                            ..... Petitioner

                         Through: Petitioner-in-person.

                         versus

       PUBLIC GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AND ORS.                    ..... Respondents

                         Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                         JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner before this Court claims to be in possession of a portion of

House No. 156, Gagan Vihar, Delhi. One S.N. Singhal filed a grievance petition

before Public Grievance Commission, alleging unauthorized encroachment on

public land by construction of House No. 156 of Gagan Vihar Extension towards

south side, thereby blocking the pedestrian passage on the disused canal road.

Gagan Vihar Extension is an unauthorized colony. Vide its letter dated 12.11.2012,

the Commission requested the Chief Engineer, PWD to ascertain the nature of the

problem of the petitioner and take corrective measures under law, for resolving the

same. The petitioner before this Court wrote a letter dated 06.01.2013 to the

Executive Engineer, PWD, referring to the complaint made by some persons from

Gagan Vihar Society, alleging encroachment on PWD land and stating that the

work of Master Plan Road had been completed way back on 23.04.2008 and a

footpath was constructed alongside the Master Plan Road stretch from Gate No. 3,

Gagan Vihar to House No. 1, Gagan Vihar, but no service road was constructed.

He further alleged that thereafter a boundary wall was constructed on the final Kerb

stone of the footpath of the Master Plan Road stretch from Gate No. 1, Gagan

Vihar to House No. 1, Gagan Vihar, but no boundary wall was constructed in front

of houses No. 152 to 156, which were abutting directly onto the footpath of the

Master Plan road. He claimed that no portion of houses No. 141 to 156 of Gagan

Vihar Extension was encroaching upon any portion of the already completed

Master Plan Road. He accordingly requested that no action may be taken on the

complaints made by such persons.

2. Vide order dated 06.02.2013, the Commission noted that there was no record

of land ownership of area in question available with PWD or MCD. The Engineer-

in-Chief of PWD was directed to take the matter with the Development

Commissioner and seek their help in demarcation of land in question. During the

subsequent hearing before the Commission on 07.03.2013, the Executive Engineer

of PWD informed that it would be able to take further action in the matter once

demarcation has been done. During the hearing before the Commission on

14.05.2013, Action Taken Report was submitted by PWD informing that a request

had been made to the Deputy Commissioner to mark the right of way to disused

canal road. He also informed that the petitioner before this Court Ankur Muterja

had claimed that he had not encroached on PWD land. The complainant before the

Commission, however, insisted that there was indeed an encroachment on PWD

land or road by owners of House No. 152 to 156 of Gagan Vihar Extension. In

these circumstances, the Commission directed the Deputy Commissioner to

expedite action on the request of PWD for demarcation of the right of way. Vide

order dated 19.06.2013, the Commission advised SDM, Preet Vihar to initiate

action for demarcation as had been requested by PWD, particularly on the stretch

in front of House Nos. 152 to 156 of Gagan Vihar Extension. Being aggrieved

from the aforesaid direction by the Commission, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. During the course of hearing, I asked the petitioner as to how he had come

into possession of the land on which House No. 156, Gagan Vihar Extension has

been constructed. The reply given by the petitioner was that he inherited the said

house from his father. When he was asked as to how his father had acquired the

aforesaid land, the petitioner stated that the land in question came to his father by

way of a series of transactions evidenced through execution of documents such as

Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell. Since the petitioner has not filed nay

document at all to indicate that he or his father owned the land underneath House

No. 156, Gagan Vihar Extension, nor had he filed any documents, evidencing

transaction by way of execution of Agreement to Sell/Power of Attorney in respect

of the aforesaid land, he was asked whether he can file any such documents so that

the Court may find out whether he has any title to the aforesaid land or not. The

petitioner stated that he cannot file any such document.

4. More importantly, I fail to appreciate any valid objection the petitioner can

have, to demarcation being carried out to identify as to whether there is any

encroachment on the disused canal road or not. No order for demolition of any part

of the house occupied by the petitioner has been passed by the Commission. The

petitioner has not placed on record any document to show the extent of land which

he claims was acquired by his father by way of documents such as Power of

Attorney/Agreement to Sell. The petition does not even disclose the area of the

land occupied by him on which the aforesaid house has been constructed. In these

circumstances, it becomes important to ascertain as to whether construction of the

house occupied by the petitioner has resulted in encroachment on the canal road or

not and this verification cannot be done unless demarcation of the said road is

carried out. If any action is sought to be taken for demolition of the house occupied

by the petitioner or any part of the said house, it would be open to the petitioner to

avail such remedy as is available to him in law in this regard, but he cannot have

valid objection to demarcation being carried out for the purpose of verifying

whether there is any encroachment on the disused canal road or not.

I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

V.K. JAIN, J

JULY 24, 2013 bg