Vajiuddin Sabri vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 4450 Del

$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             Judgment delivered on: 15th September, 2014

+                         W.P.(C) No.6146/2014

VAJIUDDIN SABRI                                    ..... Petitioner
             Represented by: Mr.Khushbir Singh, Advocate.
                  Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.            ..... Respondents
             Represented by: Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocate
                             for Respondent No.1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CM No.14909/2014 (for exemption)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6146/2014

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner seeks directions against the respondent No. 1 for removal of wall and board on the property bearing Khasra Nos. 634, 402, 407 and 408 of village Uldan Pur, Shahdra, Delhi, as the property does not fall for disposal of respondent No.1.

2. Also seeks directions against the respondent No.2 to handover the possession of the aforesaid property to the petitioner after leading demarcation of the same in accordance with his application as petitioner is the absolute owner of respective portion out of total land admeasuring 7700 square yards.

3. Ms. Shobhna Takiar, learned counsel appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and submits that the property in question falls in Village Chiragashumali instead of Village Uldan Pur, Shahdra, Delhi.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has disputed this fact and drawn attention of this Court to copy of mutation of Village Uldan Pur as Annexure 'A', which is on page No. 13 of the paper book and as per the said record, land in question falls in Village Uldan Pur.

5. To solve the aforenoted controversy, respondent No. 2, SDM (Shahdra) is the proper authority, who shall demarcate the property in question and communicate the same to the petitioner.

6. It is ordered accordingly.

7. The aforesaid SDM is directed to do the needful within a period of four weeks from today.

8. If the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision to be taken by the aforesaid SDM, he may challenge the same before the appropriate Forum.

9. In view of the above observations, the instant petition is disposed of.

10. A copy of this order shall be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.

11. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the SDM (Shahdra) for compliance.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 sb