M/S Ai-Nafees Frozen Food Exports ... vs Principal Sercrtary (Revenue ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 3665 Del

$~1
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                      Judgment delivered on: 12th August, 2014

       +       W.P.(C) 4555/2014

M/S AI-NAFEES FROZEN FOOD EXPORTS (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner
                   Represented by: Mr. Mohan Lal Saggar, Sr. Adv.
                   with Mr. Jatinder Kumar and Mr. Puneet Sharma,
                   Advs.


                       versus
PRINCIPAL SERCRTARY
(REVENUE DEPARTMENT) GOVERNMENT OF
NCT OF DELHI AND ORS                            ..... Respondents
                  Represented by: Mr. V.K. Tandon and Mr. Yogesh
                  Jain, Advs. with Mr. Ramesh Kumar, SDM,
                  Rajouri Garden, Mr. Jitender Kumar, Inspector,
                  District-Line, West and Sub-Inspector Ravi
                  Shankar, New Delhi District.
CORAM:
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition the petitioner is seeking directions to quash order dated 29.03.2014 passed by respondent No.3 i.e. Ramesh Kumar, SDM, Rajouri Garden, Government of NCT of Delhi whereby he directed the SHO, Tilak Nagar to demolish the unauthorised wall raised by the petitioner at Khasra No.15/17, village Titarpur near Pacific Mall, Delhi.

2. By the even dated order the said SDM further directed the SHO, Tilak Nagar to maintain 'status quo' with law and order till the final decision to be taken by him.

3. Admittedly, during the pendency of the complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the SDM issued notice to the parties on 26.03.2014 for 15.04.2014 directing the parties to file written statements in support of their claims.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the matter was fixed on 15.04.2014 before the said SDM, where was the occasion to pass the impugned order on 29.03.2014 even without issuing notice to the petitioner.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the relief sought in the instant petition cannot be granted by this Court since the direction issued by the SDM vide order dated 29.03.2014 has already been executed. However, he states that the said SDM had no power to pass such an order and when the complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is already pending for consideration.

6. In view of the facts recorded above, respondent No.3 was directed to appear in person on 30.07.2014.

7. Since, the notice could not be issued to respondent no. 3, he failed to appear on 30.07.2014. On the said date, Mr. V.K. Tandon, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the aforesaid respondent has undertaken to convey the order of this Court to respondent no. 3 and ensured that the said respondent shall remain personally present in court on the next date of hearing.

8. Pursuant to order dated 30.07.2014, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, SDM appeared on 04.08.2014. On the said date, SHO, PS-Tilak Nagar / concerned officer was also directed to remain present in the court on the next date of hearing, i.e, today. Accordingly, both the officers mentioned above are present in the Court.

9. Mr. Tandon submits that the land in question is disputed one and the interested parties including the petitioner were put on notice.

10. On 08/09.03.2014 at about 6 AM, a complaint, in respect of unauthorized construction was received at PS-Tilak Nagar which was culminated into a Kalandra, wherein the name of the petitioner was mentioned. The same was conveyed to the SDM mentioned above.

11. As per the record of the respondent, the petitioner had been appearing before the SDM prior to 22.10.2013. Same is indicated from the Vakalatnama filed by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein.

12. The present case is of disputed facts. Civil Suit in respect of property in question is also pending.

13. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to contest the case pending before SDM, i.e., respondent no. 3 and the Civil Suit pending before the Trial Court.

14. In view of the facts recorded above, no further order is required to be passed.

15. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed.

16. Needless to state that if it is established that demolition is carried out illegally, the petitioner is at liberty to take action against the erring authority as per law.

SURESH KAIT, J AUGUST 12, 2014/jg