Shaeda vs South Delhi Municipal ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 5493 Del

$~19
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(C) 7231/2015
     SHAEDA                                    ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. Parvej with Mr. Firoj & Mr. J.
                               Chandra, Advs.
                                    Versus
         SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
         CORPORATION & ORS                       ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Jayendra, Adv. for R-1/SDMC.
                                 Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Adv. for
                                 R-2.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                      ORDER

% 31.07.2015

1. Though the petition is filed seeking mandamus to the respondent No.1

South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) and to the respondent No.2

Police to take action with respect to the construction, allegedly unauthorized,

being carried on by the respondent No.3 Haji Phulwa Chaudhary on plots of

land i) ad-measuring 200 sq. yds. at Khasra No.735, ii) ad-measuring 100

sq.yds. at Khasra No.716, and iii) ad-measuring 30 sq.yds. at Khasra No.716

all situated at B-128, Kilokari Village, Kilokari, New Delhi but at the same

time, it is stated that the petitioner is a co-owner of the said properties along

with the respondent No.3 Haji Phulwa Chaudhary.

The petition is thus actuated by a desire to settle the dispute as to co-

ownership between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 Haji Phulwa

Chaudhary.

2. I have for detailed reasons given in the order dated 30 th July, 2015 in

W.P.(C) Nos.6495/2015 and 6494/2015 titled Naeem Ahmed Vs. South

Delhi Municipal Corporation and Rohan Sharma Vs. North Delhi

Municipal Corporation held that the public law remedy of a writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in these

circumstances.

3. The petition is thus dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take

appropriate remedy under the general law for all the reliefs claimed in this petition.

4. It is further clarified that the dismissal of this petition shall not

constitute a licence to the respondent No.3 Haji Phulwa Chaudhary or any

other person for carrying on unauthorized construction and shall not relieve

the respondent No.1 SDMC of its statutory obligations in this regard.

5. No costs.

Dasti.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 31, 2015 'gsr'..

(Corrected and released on 12.09.2015)