Delhi High Court
Mahinder Singh vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 23 April, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) Nos.1143/2013 & CM APPL.2180/2013,
6667/2013 & CM APPL.14470/2013, 595/2013 & CM
APPL.1133/2013, 4469/2013 & CM APPL.10325/2013,
6779/2013 & CM APPL.14706/2013, 2364/2014 & CM
APPL.4988/2014, 2365/2014 & CM APPL.4989/2014
2366/2014 & CM APPL.4990/2014 , 2369/2014 & CM
APPL.4994/2014, 2370/2014 & CM APPL.4995/2014,
2371/2014 & CM APPL.4996/2014, 2372/2014 & CM
APPL.4997/2014 , 2373/2014 & CM APPL.4998/2014,
2376/2014 & CM APPL.5002/2014, 2378/2014 & CM
APPL.5003/2014, 2379/2014 & CM APPL.5004/2014,
2392/2014 & CM APPL.5027/2014, 2397/2014 & CM
APPL.5030/2014, & 2398/2014 & CM APPL.5031/2014
Decided on : 23.04.2014
IN THE MATTERS OF
+ W.P.(C) 1143/2013 and CM APPL. 2180/2013
MAHINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate with
Mr. Yogesh Saini and Mr. Omar Siddiqui, Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 595/2013 and CM APPL. 1133/2013
SUKHDEV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate with
Mr. Yogesh Saini and Mr. Anuj Tyagi, Advocates
W.P.(C) 1143/2013 & connected matters Page 1 of 14
+ W.P.(C) 6667/2013 and CM APPL. 14470/2013
ISHWAR SINGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Somdutt Kaushik, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate with
Mr. Yogesh Saini and Mr. Omar Siddiqui, Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 4469/2013 and CM APPL. 10325/2013
ANOKHEE DEVI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shivom Garg, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate with
Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 6779/2013 and CM APPL. 14706/2013
HARNAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate with
Mr. Yogesh Saini and Mr. Omar Siddiqui, Advocates
W.P.(C) 1143/2013 & connected matters Page 2 of 14
+ W.P.(C) 2364/2014 and CM APPL. 4988/2014
INDER SINGH DEAD THROUGH LRS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
+ W.P.(C) 2365/2014 and CM APPL. 4989/2014
BIMLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
+ W.P.(C) 2366/2014 and CM APPL. 4990/2014
KAMAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
W.P.(C) 1143/2013 & connected matters Page 3 of 14
+ W.P.(C) 2369/2014 and CM APPL. 4994/2014
KALE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
+ W.P.(C) 2370/2014 and CM APPL. 4995/2014
BACHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
+ W.P.(C) 2371/2014 and CM APPL. 4996/2014
CHATHU MANDAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
W.P.(C) 1143/2013 & connected matters Page 4 of 14
+ W.P.(C) 2372/2014 and CM APPL. 4997/2014
BAIJNATH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
+ W.P.(C) 2373/2014 and CM APPL. 4998/2014
VAJEER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
+ W.P.(C) 2376/2014 and CM APPL. 5002/2014
RAVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
W.P.(C) 1143/2013 & connected matters Page 5 of 14
+ W.P.(C) 2378/2014 and CM APPL. 5003/2014
JANARDAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
+ W.P.(C) 2379/2014 and CM APPL. 5004/2014
VADPARKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
+ W.P.(C) 2392/2014 and CM APPL. 5027/2014
LAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
W.P.(C) 1143/2013 & connected matters Page 6 of 14
+ W.P.(C) 2397/2014 and CM APPL. 5030/2014
SATPAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
+ W.P.(C) 2398/2014 and CM APPL. 5031/2014
MANGERAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/GNCTD.
Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for R-2/BDO
Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. By this common order, the Court proposes to dispose of a batch of
nineteen petitions, wherein the petitioners have sought directions to the
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi to permit them to undertake fresh construction on
plots of land allegedly allotted to them in Khasra Nos. 129, 142 and 143,
Ambedkar Colony, Chattarpur, Delhi under a 15-year patta issued in
pursuance to a Housing Scheme floated under the Twenty-Point Programme
introduced in the year 1976, by the then Prime Minister of India.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in W.P.(C) No.
1143/2013 are being taken into consideration. The petitioner in the said
petition has claimed that on 18.06.1985, he was issued a patta by the
Pradhan of the Gram Sabha, Chattarpur, New Delhi, allotting him a
residential plot measuring 100 sq. yards comprised in Khasra Nos. 129,
142 and 143, village Chattarpur, Delhi. He claims that after the plot was
allotted in his favour, he had carried out construction thereon and started to
reside there alongwith his family. In the year 2004, the officers of the
respondents started alleging that the petitioner's possession over the subject
plot was not on the same land that had been allotted to him under the
Scheme. On 6.11.2004, the respondents proceeded to demolish the
petitioner's property. On 26.1.2005, the Deputy Commissioner (South) had
addressed a letter to the SHO, Mehrauli permitting reconstruction at the site
in question limited to the extent of the pre-existing structure that had been
demolished on 6.11.2004, with a caveat that the said approval did not
confer any title or interest on the Gram Sabha land in question and the
ownership thereof would remain vested in the Gram Sabha.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have carried out fresh construction
on the subject plot to the extent of the pre-existing structure, but alleges
that on 26.7.2007, the respondent No.2/BDO had demolished his house with
the help of the police force. Yet again, on 23.3.2011, the respondent
No.2/BDO came to the site with the police force and allegedly carried out
partial demolition of the petitioner's house. Demolition action was
undertaken for the third time in November, 2012 and finally, in January,
2013, the respondents had proceeded to dispossess the petitioner from the
plot in question. On 10.2.2013, when the respondent No.4/Department of
Transport, Govt. of NCT of Delhi started raising construction around the
area, including the petitioner's plot, he alongwith other aggrieved parties
had filed the present petitions seeking permission to carry out fresh
construction over the subject plots allegedly allotted to them by virtue of the
Patta certificates.
4. Counter affidavits in opposition to the writ petitions have been filed by
the respondent No.2/BDO and the respondent No.4/Department of
Transport, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The respondent No.2/GNCTD has
categorically denied that any Patta certificates were issued in favour of the
petitioners as alleged by them, much less any allotment of plots of land
made in their favour in Khasra No.129, 142 and 143. It has also been stated
that Khasra No.129 is not contiguous to Khasra No.142 and 143. Counsel for
the respondents states that the petitioners cannot claim any parity with 799
allottees, who were made allotments under the Twenty-Point Programme as
he states that those allottees are on different footing and as per the latest
existing policy formulated by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide order dated
19.09.2011 regarding grant of perpetual lease rights on an "as is where is
basis", the same is meant for the benefit of actual allottees, who were found
to be in possession of their constructed houses allotted to them. He states
that the Patta certificates relied upon by the petitioners have no sanction of
the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as the same have admittedly been issued by the
Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, village Chhatarpur without forwarding the list of
names for obtaining approval from the Directorate of Panchayat and the list
of persons recognised by the Directorate of Panchayat under the Twenty
Point Programme do not include the names of the petitioners herein. It is
thus stated that the petitioners are rank encroachers on Gaon Sabha land
and the said land had not been allotted to them at any point in time.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in the year 2004,
certain parties claiming to be owners and in occupation of plots of land in
Khasra No.142 and 143 had filed writ petitions before this Court and in the
said proceedings, directions had been issued to the revenue authorities to
demarcate the subject Khasra Nos. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid
order, a survey was carried out by the beat staff of the Revenue Department
on 06.07.2004, whereunder a survey of Khasra No.133, 142/1, 142/2,
143/1 and 143/2 was undertaken. A copy of the survey report has been
enclosed with the affidavit dated 26.10.2013 and marked as Annexure R-
2/A.
6. Counsel for the respondents states that a perusal of the aforesaid
survey report would demonstrate that even at that point in time, Khasra
No.142 and 143 were found to be vacant, except for a road constructed by
the MCD, running through both the Khasras, a room that belonged to the
Delhi Vidyut Board and some Kuchcha/Pucca jhuggies. He therefore states
that the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that they had raised
construction on the aforesaid plots of land much prior thereto stands
demolished by the aforesaid survey report dated 06.07.2004.
7. Without prejudice to the aforesaid argument and in the alternate, it
has been stated by the counsel for the respondent No.2 that even as per
clause (2) of the Patta certificates relied upon by the petitioners, it was
mandatory upon the allottee to construct a residential house on the
demised plot within a period of nine years and if the aforesaid Patta
certificates had been issued in the year 1985, the period of nine years
reckoned therefrom would have ended in the year 1994, whereas the
aforesaid survey report undertaken in the year 2004 reveals that on the said
date, there were no residential houses found on the subject land.
8. It is therefore canvassed that the petitioners, who were rank
encroachers, were rightly removed from the subject land owned by the Gaon
Sabha and they have failed to demonstrate any right, title and interest in the
subject land, for maintaining the present petition. In their additional affidavit
dated 11.02.2014, the respondent No.2 has stated that the very fact that
the petitioners have approached this Court at such a belated stage is itself
sufficient to doubt their bona fides and further, at the time of passing the
order dated 04.02.2011 by the High Court in connected matters, including
W.P.(C) 17638/2004 entitled Dhapu vs. State and Ors., liberty was
granted to the petitioners to apply to the respondents for alternative land in
case the subject land was found to be in Khasra No.142 and 143, but for the
reasons best known to them, the petitioners herein have chosen to remain
silent.
9. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent
No.4/Department of Transport, wherein it has been stated that the original
owner of the subject land was the Gaon Sabha. Subsequently, in the year
2006, the Transport Department was allotted land measuring 2 Bighas in
Khasra No.133, 2 Bighas 10 Biswas in Khasra No.142/2 and 2 Bighas 2
Biswas in Khasra No.143/3 for the purpose of constructing the zonal office.
The Transport Department paid a sum of Rs.32,41,563/- to the BDO for
purchasing the aforesaid land and thereafter a joint demolition programme
was arranged by the Revenue Department, Transport Department and the
Directorate of Panchayat and action was taken on 24.03.2011 for removal of
encroachment from the Gaon Sabha land in Khasra No.142/2 and 143/2,
village Chhatarpur. In the course of the said demolition action, all the
Kuchcha-Pucca unauthorised structures erected by the encroachers on the
subject land were removed and physical possession of 4 Bighas 12 Biswas of
the Gaon Sabha land was retrieved. Thereafter, possession of the
encroachment free land was handed over to the Transport Department.
10. In his rejoinder, counsel for the petitioners disputes the submissions
made by the counsel for the respondents and asserts that the Patta
certificates were legally issued by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, village
Chhatarpur under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and Delhi Panchayat Raj
Act, 1954. He contends that it is on the strength of the aforesaid Patta
certificates that the petitioners have remained in possession and occupation
of the subject land for fifteen years and even after expiry of fifteen years
granted under the Patta, they had remained in occupation of the subject
land and raised construction thereon that had been illegally demolished in
the year 2004.
11. The petitioners have also questioned the extent of land allotted to the
respondent No.4/Transport Department in Khasra No.142 and 143 and
stated in their rejoinder that the Transport Department is an encroacher
having taken possession of the entire Khasra No.133, 142 and 143, which is
contrary to the allotment made in their favour. It is alleged that while the
respondent No.4 was allotted land measuring 6 Bighas 12 Biswas out of
Khasra No.142 and 143, the construction on the remaining 5 Bighas 4
Biswas of land was demolished by the respondents, without any authority in
law. The petitioners have further asserted that the subject land forms a part
and parcel of the Patta certificates and they are entitled to the relief prayed
for in the present petitions.
12. The Court has examined the averments made in the writ petitions and
the affidavits filed by the respondents and after hearing the arguments
advanced by the counsels for the parties, is of the opinion that disputed
questions of facts have been raised in the present petitions, which include
the very existence of the Patta certificates relied upon by the petitioners for
claiming a right on plots of land, the existence of structures allegedly built
by them on the subject land prior to the demolition action that took place as
long back as in the year 2004 and the exact location of the plots allegedly
allotted to the petitioners under the Patta certificates filed by them. The said
issues cannot be determined in the present proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, as evidence shall have to be led by the petitioners
for the Court to determine their rights, if any, on the subject land.
13. Accordingly, the Court declines to entertain the present petitions that
are disposed of alongwith the pending applications while granting liberty to
the petitioners to seek their legal remedies against the respondents as may
be available to them in law, for establishing their entitlement to the subject
land and for seeking permission to raise construction thereon.
HIMA KOHLI, J
APRIL 23, 2014
rkb
