Delhi High Court
Shri Sheel Chandra & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr. on 24 October, 2016
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) 7132/2016 & C.M. No. 29355/2016
SHRI SHEEL CHANDRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.N.S.Vasisht and
Mr.M.P.Bhargava, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Kanika Singh Assistant Standing
Counsel and Mr.Rishi Vohra, Advocates for
R-2/NDMC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 24.10.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying inter
alia for the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order and direction, in the nature of certiorari
and/or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the terms of
Condition-V of the letter dated 26.6.1985 issued by the
Respondent No.2 and the item No.3 of the letter dated 27.5.1994
requiring the handing over of possession of 1727.14 sq. yds, of
land from the Property No.34, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi free
of cost as a pre-condition for the grant of completion certificate.
(ii) Issue a writ, order and direction, in the nature mandamus
and/or any other similar writ, order or direction, directing the
Respondent No.2 to return and deliver to the Petitioners the
possession of 272.708 sq. yds of land in the front portion and
1454.44 sq. yds of land in the back portion of the property No.34,
Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi, illegally and unauthorisedly taken
over by the respondent No.2.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on
advance notice, states that the present petition is not maintainable for the
reason that the earlier hereto, the petitioners had filed a writ petition asking
for almost similar relief, registered as WP(C) No.231/1996.
3. Incidentally, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed in default on
15.10.2003. The petitioners in the said writ petition have recently filed an
application for restoration of the said petition and for condonation of delay
of 4680 days, on which notice was issued on 23.8.2016, returnable for
24.10.2016, i.e., today. The respondents have entered appearance in the said
petition and sought time to file replies in opposition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the fact
that the petitioners are seeking restoration of the earlier writ petition which
was dismissed in default on 15.10.2003 and the reliefs in both the petitions
are almost identical, the present petition is not maintainable on the analogy
of Order II Rule 2 CPC and on the ground of res judicata.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to
withdraw the present petition while reserving the right of the petitioners to
seek their remedies against the respondent/NDMC in accordance with law
in the event, the applications of restoration of WP(C) No. 239/1996 and
condonation of delay are rejected.
6. Leave, as prayed, for is granted. The present writ petition is dismissed
as withdrawn, along with the pending applications.
7. It is however clarified that in the event the applications for restoration
and condonation of delay filed by the petitioners in WP(C) No.239/1996 are
dismissed and they elect to file a fresh petition for the same relief, then the
respondents shall be entitled to oppose the same on the ground of
maintainability and on all other grounds as may be available to them, both in
law and on facts.
HIMA KOHLI, J
OCTOBER 24, 2016
mk
