Delhi High Court
Amrit Lal Ghai And Ors. vs D.D.A. And Ors. on 7 October, 2015
Author: Manmohan
#20, 21, 22, 24
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
20.
+ W.P.(C) 313-19/2005 & CM APPL. 19953/2015
AMRIT LAL GHAI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Prema Priyadarshini,
Mr. Praoyot Pravash and Ms. Wamika
Trehan, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Arjun Pant, Standing Counsel for
DDA.
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Addl.
Standing Counsel (Civil) for Govt.
NCTD of Delhi.
WITH
21.
+ W.P.(C) 3818/2014 & CM APPL. 7679/2014
RADHEY SHYAM AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Prema Priyadarshini, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate for
R-1/UOI.
Mr. Arjun Pant, Standing Counsel for
DDA.
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Addl.
Standing Counsel (Civil) for Govt.
W.P.(C) 313-19/2005 & others Page 1 of 7
NCTD of Delhi.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel
for SDMC.
AND
22.
+ W.P.(C) 3846/2014 & CM APPL. 7749/2014
BAL KISHAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rahul Rajpal, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel
for R-1/DDA.
Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate for
R-2 and 3.
Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate for
R-5/UOI.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel
for SDMC.
AND
24.
+ W.P.(C) 7372/2014 & CM APPL. 17234/2014
HARJEET SINGH AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Prema Priyadarshini, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC
for R-1/UOI.
W.P.(C) 313-19/2005 & others Page 2 of 7
Mr. Satyakam, Addl. Standing
Counsel (Civil) with Mr. Nikhil
Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-2 &
3/GNCTD.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel for DDA.
Mr. G.D. Mishra, Standing Counsel
for R-4/SDMC.
% Date of Decision : 7th October, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present batch of writ petitions has been filed seeking a direction to
respondents not to demolish residential houses/properties of the petitioners
at K Block, Krishna Park Extension and Mahavir Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Outer
Ring Road, New Delhi-110018.
2. Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned senior counsel for petitioners states that
respondents have not acted in accordance with the order dated 11th
December, 2003 passed by HMJ Sanjay Kishan Kaul while disposing of writ
petition being W.P.(C) 2006/1997. He states that survey has not been
carried out in accordance with the regularisation plan and consequently, road
widening after demolishing properties of the petitioners is impressible. He
urges that encroachment on public land has been done by the residents of
either Anand Kunj Society or Gujarawalan Society and not by the
petitioners.
3. Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, learned additional standing counsel
appearing for Government of NCT of Delhi states that the mandate given by
HMJ Sanjay Kishan Kaul in the order dated 11th December, 2003 has been
complied with inasmuch as a survey has been carried out in accordance with
the regularisation plan by TSM method. He points out that there is
encroachment by the petitioners in the form of commercial shops on 200 ft.
wide road shown in the regularisation plan dated 22nd April, 1983.
4. Since both parties had not produced the regularisation plan dated 22nd
April, 1983, they were directed to place on record the same. Today in
Court, they have handed over a copy of the said plan duly signed by learned
counsel for petitioners and respondent-Govt. of NCT of Delhi along with
footnote and same is taken on record in W.P.(c) No.313-19/2005. In the
opinion of this Court, the location of K-145 is irrelevant to the issue of
construction of ring road which is shown independently on the plan.
5. This Court is of the opinion that HMJ Sanjay Kishan Kaul by his
order has given a mandate to the respondents to construct the 200 ft. wide
road in accordance with the regularisation plan. The said order has attained
finality. Consequently, the same is binding upon all the parties. The order
dated 11th December, 2003 passed by the HMJ Sanjay Kishan Kaul in
W.P.(C) 2006/1997 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"The petitioners have impugned the letter dated 25.4.1997 of
PWD Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi stating
that there is illegal possession of land comprised in the road and
that the possession has to be removed. The aforesaid letter was
issued in view of the project for road widening and the apathy of
the respondent department has resulted in a situation where this
project is a stand still for the last six years. The land in question
was acquired in terms of award No.20/73-74 and was placed at
the disposal of the PWD Department on 2.7.1975. The area was
declared as a developmental area but in terms of notification
dated 13.7.1987 the area was denotified as a developmental
area. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the
notification in terms whereof the area was denotified. The
denotification is limited to the issue of the developmental area
and the land as such acquired was never denotified. A colony in
the meantime was constructed on the land and in terms of a
regularisation plan, the colony is stated to have been
regularised. The regularisation plan shows 200 ft. wide road
which had to be constructed and apparently at the stage of
regularisation there was not really much problem of
encroachment on that road. This is stated to have been arisen
subsequently. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the alignment of the road was such that only a few properties
were being affected and other properties which are now sought
to be demolished were not to be affected by the road widening.
This submission is based on the regularisation plan. The
respondents have filed their plans though the regularisation plan
filed by the petitioner is not disputed. In terms of the plans filed
by the respondents, it is stated that extensions have been made by
persons and certain properties are affected which would require
to be removed for the road widening. The aforesaid aspect was
taken up in the present petition as far back on 27.2.97. It was
noticed that there was even a PWD office (stated to be temporary
at that stage of time) which was falling in the road way. The
PWD Department has stated that the same would also be
removed but learned counsel for the petitioner states that now it
is permanent structure. In terms of the directions passed on the
said date, the PWD was directed to file a bigger plan of the
particular block. This plan has however not been filed and the
affidavit filed by the DDA really relies upon regularisation plan
filed by the petitioner.
In my considered view all that required to be done is that a
survey has to be made and whatever falls within the road
widening has to be removed. It has to be appreciated that the
land in question in fact was acquired and the question whether
any one has taken compensation or not as raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner is immaterial for the present
proceedings. The regularisation plan itself envisages a particular
width of the road and the bottlenecks cannot be created in the
said project. There is also an element of public interest involved
as traffic create bottlenecks in the area in question. It may also
be noticed that the photographs show that the properties are
being used for commercial purpose. The regularisation was for a
residential user. It is not clear as to whether this commercial
user is as per authorisation given by an authority and as per any
modified user plan. If it is so no further direction is required. But
in case there is commercial user contrary to the prescribed user
then it would call for forthwith action by the concerned
authorities.
The respondents No.2 and 3 which are the concerned
respondents are thus directed to carry out a survey of the area
within a maximum period of two months taking the basis as the
regularisation plan and proceed thereafter for the construction
of the road by removing all the structures which fall within the
road widening project. The petitioner can supply necessary
documents within 15 days. It may be noticed that some trunk load
documents have been filed which respondents No.2 and 3 is
directed to collect from the Registry against receipt. The writ
petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions."
6. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that even the regularisation plan
relied upon by the petitioners itself shows a 200 ft. wide encroachment free
road. HMJ Sanjay Kishan Kaul had directed that a survey be carried out on
the basis of regularisation plan and further that whatever encroachment falls
within the 200 ft. wide road be removed. In the said order it had been
emphasised that by way of the regularisation plan only a residential colony
had been regularised and not commercial encroachment on the proposed
road.
7. Learned Judge had also pointed out that there was also an element of
public interest involved in the present proceedings.
8. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the issue raised in the
present writ petitions are barred by principles of res judicata.
9. As far as the factual disputes, i.e., whether survey is in accordance
with the regularisation plan or whether petitioners or Anand Kunj Society or
Gujrawalan Society have encroached upon the public land, this Court is of
the view that they are in the nature of disputed questions of fact which
cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings.
10. As construction of Ring Road which is a major infrastructural project
has been delayed because of the pending petitions, all respondents are
directed to cooperate with each other and are directed to complete the
construction of 200 ft. wide road in accordance with the regularisation plan
immediately. In the event any demolition is to be carried out for
construction of the said road, respondents are directed to take action in
accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, present batch of writ petitions and
applications stand disposed of and all interim orders stand vacated. Order
dasti.
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 07, 2015
rn
