Delhi High Court
Surjit Kaur vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 13 October, 2014
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13th October, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 6952/2014
SURJIT KAUR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Pawan Kumar
Bahl, Adv.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
& ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms. Mini Pushkarna,
Adv. / Standing Counsel for R1.
Mr. Pradeep Desodya and Ms. Anjana
Gosain, Advs. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
+ W.P.(C) 6952/2014
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby
directing the respondents to get the demarcation done on the land in
question after giving notice to the petitioner.
2. Mr. Pawan Kumar Bahl, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that a complaint dated 05.07.2012 was made by
one Narender Sachdeva, against Property no. 76/6, Krishna Nagar,
Lane no. 2 owned by the petitioner situated just opposite to his
residence, i.e.. 76, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi, on the allegation that
petitioner has encroached the Government land and constructed a
three side wall for storing the refrigerator and air-conditioner.
3. The said complaint was referred to SDM, Hauz Khas to
ascertain whether the aforesaid plot size of 263.4 Sq. Mtr. is within
Khasra No. 478/20/8 and 479/20/9 Humayunpur Village or is a Govt.
land which has been encroached upon.
4. For demarcation, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saket issued
notices to (i) the Executive Engineer, South Zone (ii) Sh. Narender
Sachdeva, complainant (iii) M/s. Intech Engineer Office and (iv)
Halka Patwari, Village-Humayunpur. However, no notice has been
received either by the petitioner, who has purchased the said land or
the original owner of the land or the occupier as per the complaint.
5. It is further submitted that vide order dated 09.09.2014, a notice
was issued to the petitioner and her daughter, whereby they were
directed to remove the encroachment from the Government land under
Section 321/ 322, DMC, Act, 1957 from opposite to 76, Krishna
Nagar within six days from the date of receipt of this notice,
otherwise, the encroachment will be removed by the Office of
respondent no.1.
6. From the communication referred above, it is established that
the petitioner or the original owner of the property in question have
not received any notice from the SDM, however, the directions were
issued vide order dated 09.09.2014.
7. Keeping in view the averments made in the instant petition,
respondent no. 2 is directed to consider the representations dated
03.09.2014, 05.09.2014 and 12.09.2014 and if required, re-demarcate
the land in question.
8. I further make it clear that respondent no. 2 shall pass a fresh
order after hearing the petitioner and the decision taken by the
respondent no.2 shall be communicated to the petitioner within a
week from the date of order. Till one week thereafter status qua
against the property of the petitioner as noted above shall be
maintained.
9. Accordingly, instant petition stands disposed of.
CM. NO. 16365/2014
With the disposal of the instant petition, instant application has
become infructuous and disposed of as such.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the Signatures of the
Court Master to both the parties.
SURESH KAIT, J
OCTOBER 13, 2014
jg
