Vinod Kumar vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 4574 Del

$~10
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 6176/2015
       VINOD KUMAR                                    ..... Petitioner
                           Through: Mr Anand Yadav & Ms Anita Tomar,
                           Advs.

                           versus

       GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS           ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr Peeyoosh Kalra, ASC with Ms
                     Mahua Kalra, Adv.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
               ORDER

% 01.07.2015

CM No. 11230/2015 (Exemption)

1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.

WP(C) 6176/2015 & CM No. 11231/2015 (interim relief)

2. The basic grievance of the petitioner appears to be, that the respondents herein have not removed the alleged encroachments on the public passage/ raasta which forms part of khasra no. 593 and is positioned in the front portion of khasra no. 228 situate in village Jaunti, Delhi.

3. The record shows that the petitioner has filed complaints, in this behalf, inter alia, both with the concerned SHO as well as the SDM. As a matter of fact, the said complaints are appended at pages 30 and 33 of the paper book.

3.1 Apparently, the concerned SDM, vide communication dated 18.12.2014 forwarded the petitioner's complaint to the BDO (North West),

Kanjhawala, Delhi.

3.2 Pursuant to the said communication issued by the SDM, the BDO, apparently, issued a notice dated 05.01.2015 to the purported encroachers. By this notice, the BDO directed the noticees to vacate the aforementioned public passage/ raasta, failing which action for removal of encroachments would be taken, by using force, albeit at their cost. For this purpose, the purported encroachers were given ten (10) days time. 3.3 The notice dated 05.01.2015 is demonstrative of the fact that apart from various encroachers, whose names were mentioned therein, there is a reference to one, Mr Zile Singh son of Mr Sudhan. 3.4 It appears that Mr Zile Singh son of Mr Sudhan has filed a counter- complaint.

3.5 It is perhaps based on the said counter-complaint that vide a communication dated 30.04.2015, the BDO, wrote to the SDM, indicating therein that since he had received a complaint from Mr Zile Singh son of Mr Sudhan (to whom I have made a reference hereinabove), the SDM should issue necessary instructions to field staff to demarcate the subject land, so that necessary steps could be taken thereafter, for removal of encroachments.

3.6 Since the petitioner had approached the BDO, in line, with the communication dated 30.04.2015, written by him to the SDM, a communication dated 22.05.2015 was dispatched to the petitioner wherein, a position has been taken, that only upon demarcation being conducted information as to the persons who were in possession of khasra no. 593, located in front portion of khasra no. 227 (i.e. the public passage/ raasta),

could be given to him.

3.7 To be noted, this communication was sent pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking the names of the purported encroachers.

4. Being dissatisfied with the approach of the respondents, the petitioner, has approached this court by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr Peeyoosh Kalra has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties for some time. I propose to dispose of the petition at the notice stage itself. I am also of the view that no counter affidavit is required, at this stage, in view of the directions that I propose to pass.

6. Before I do that, what has emerged from record as presently placed before me is as follows: The correspondence relied upon by the petitioner, which is backed by his affidavit, is indicative of the fact that the process of demarcation is underway, and that, determination as to whether or not there is encroachment, and if so, who are those encroachers, on the public passage/ raasta, can be made only thereafter.

6.1 Since, Mr Yadav, who appears for the petitioner, has indicated that his client is willing to pay the cost of the demarcation, I see no difficulty in issuing the following directions to the respondents.

(i) The respondents will carry out the demarcation of the subject area, within six weeks from today.

(ii) The demarcation will be carried out preferably by using TMC methodology.

(iii) The cost of demarcation will be deposited by the petitioner within ten

(10) days from today, albeit upon the respondents indicating the petitioner as to the costs involved. The needful will be done within three (3) days from today by the respondents.

(iv) Upon demarcation, the respondents will generate a report in that behalf; a copy of which will be given to the petitioner.

(v) Immediately upon generation of the report, the respondents will proceed to determine as to whether there is any encroachment on the subject area.

(vi) If the respondents were to come to a conclusion that there is encroachment, they would take necessary steps, albeit in accordance with law, for having the encroachment removed.

7. Needless to say, if there is no other impediment in law, and if the respondents were to come to a conclusion that there are encroachments on the subject land, the same will be removed as expeditiously as possible, though not later than three (3) months from today.

8. The writ petition and the application are, accordingly, disposed of.

9. List for compliance on 30.10.2015.

10. Dasti to both parties.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JULY 01, 2015 kk