Delhi High Court
Ram Dayal And Ors vs State Of Delhi And Ors on 4 August, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5194/2015 and CM No.9421/2015 (stay)
RAM DAYAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Mr. Atit Jain,
Ms. Divya Garg and Mr. Shakiq Ahmed,
Advocates
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, ASC with Mr.
Sudhindra Tripath and Ms. Sona Babbar,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 04.08.2015
1. After some arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes
that since an appeal is pending before the Dy. Commissioner (South) with
regard to the demolition notice dated 06.08.2014 qua the structures said to
have been situate at Khasra no.124, Village Jonapur, Block Mehrauli, Tehsil
Hauz Khas, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject property), the
petitioners would prosecute the said appeal.
1.1 Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw
the captioned petition subject to the protection being granted to the
petitioners during the pendency of the appeal.
2. Mr. Kalra, who appears for the respondents, says that in so far as the
petitioners before this court are concerned, possession has already been
W.P.(C) 5194/2015 page 1 of 3
taken since demolition was carried out on 06.08.2014 itself. It is Mr.
Kalra's submission that consequently the petitioners' stand dispossessed.
2.1 This contention, however, has been refuted by the counsel for the
petitioners.
2.2 I may only note that it is Mr. Kalra say that pursuant to the order of
this court dated 22.05.2015, he has filed an affidavit alongwith photographs
showing the position, as it obtains on the subject site. I am informed that the
petitioners have also filed an affidavit with photographs. However, both the
affidavits said to have been filed, are not on record.
2.3 Mr. Kalra has though, shown me, photographs filed alongwith the
aforementioned affidavit which, clearly demonstrate that [in so far as the
photographs appended as Annexure B (collectively) are concerned], there
are some partially demolished structures standing, at site. Annexure B,
according to Mr. Kalra, consists of a park. I must also note that it is Mr.
Kalra's submission that photograph appended as Annexure A to the said
affidavit pertain to the petitioners.
2.4 Mr. Kalra further says that the notice dated 18.05.2015 (see page 154
of the paper book) which, apparently, triggered the instant writ petition was
not directed against the petitioners herein.
3. Having regard to the rival submissions, I am of the view that, as
prayed, the petitioners ought to be permitted to withdraw the petition to
prosecute the appeal pending before the Dy. Commissioner (South). Since,
there is no clarity as to the state of the structures on the subject site, the Dy.
Commissioner (South) will decide this aspect of the matter, as well.
3.1 However, pending the adjudication and the disposal of the appeal, the
W.P.(C) 5194/2015 page 2 of 3
respondents will maintain status quo as it obtains today. In case, the
decision rendered by the Dy. Commissioner (South), in the appeal, is
adverse to the interests of the petitioners, the petitioners will have liberty to
take recourse to an appropriate remedy; albeit in accordance with law. The
respondents will, however, give petitioners a leeway of atleast three weeks
to take recourse to an appropriate remedy.
4. The Registry is directed to place the affidavits filed by the petitioners
as well as the respondents on the court record.
5. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition and
the pending application are disposed of.
CM No.13589/2015 (for impleadment)
6. In view of the fact that the petitioners have withdrawn the writ
petition, no orders are called for in the captioned application, as it has been
rendered infructuous.
7. The captioned application is accordingly disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AUGUST 04, 2015
yg
W.P.(C) 5194/2015 page 3 of 3
