Darshna vs State Of Delhi & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4793 Del

$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             Judgment delivered on: 24th September, 2014

+                         W.P.(C) No.6555/2014

DARSHNA                                                  ..... Petitioner
                     Represented by:   Mr.Hemant Gupta, Advocate.


                          Versus

STATE OF DELHI & ANR.                                   ..... Respondents
             Represented by:           Mr.Devendra Kumar and
                                       Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocates for
                                       Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CM No. 15623/2014 (for exemption)

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

W.P.(C) 6555/2014

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 05.08.2013 and the order dated 08.09.2014, passed by the respondent No.2/BDO (North-West), Kanjhawala, Delhi.

2. Vide order dated 12.08.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5103/2013, i.e., the petition filed by the petitioner herein, this Court directed the

BDO (North-West) to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 10.08.2013 after giving opportunity to the petitioner. It was further directed that the interim protection granted by this Court vide its order dated 14.08.2013 shall remain in force for fifteen days after communication of the decision to be taken by the aforesaid BDO to the petitioner with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum as per law, if aggrieved.

3. The Block Development Officer/respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order dated 08.09.2014, recorded as under:-

".......Darshna appeared and submitted the reply before the undersigned. The undersigned verified the all facts with revenue records and found that the status of the said land belong to Gram Sabha and reserve for hospital/Water Tank (Tanky).

Hence the plea of the applicant is dismsised and representation is disposed off."

4. Perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the documents filed by the petitioner have not been dealt with by the BDO/respondent No.2 while passing the said order. The same is not a speaking order and even it is not clear as to on what basis the decision has been taken by the BDO/ respondent No.2.

5. In view of the above noted facts, I hereby set aside the impugned order dated 08.09.2014.

6. Consequently, the respondent NO.2/BDO (North-West), Kanjhawala, Delhi, is directed to pass a fresh reasoned order by taking into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner with directions to communicate the decision to be taken to the petitioner within one week

thereof.

7. No coercive action shall be taken by the respondents qua the property of the petitioner for fifteen days after the communication of the decision to be taken by the aforesaid BDO to the petitioner.

8. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed.

9. A copy of this order shall be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner under the signature of the Court Master. CM No.15622/2014 (for stay)

With the disposal of the writ petition, the instant application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 sb