Delhi High Court
Radhey Shyam Jha And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 January, 2017
$~11.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 687/2013
RADHEY SHYAM JHA AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for R-1.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for R-2/DDA.
Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Standing Counsel with
Mr. Pranav Handa, Advocate for R-4/DUSIB.
Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for R-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 16.01.2017
CM APPL. 34549/2016 (for rectification of the order dated 18.03.2014)
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioners for correction
of the order dated 18.03.2014, limited to the extent of correctly describing
the plot, subject matter of the petition.
2. Notice was issued on this application on 04.11.2016, on which date
counsels for the respondent No.1/UOI, respondent No.4/DUSIB and
respondent No.7 were present. None was present on behalf of the respondent
No.2/DDA on the last date of hearing.
3. None of the respondents have filed a reply in opposition to the present
application.
4. Counsels for the respondent No.2/DDA, respondent No.4/DUSIB and
respondent No.7 state today that they have no objection to the present
application being allowed as the correction sought by the petitioners is
formal in nature.
5. Pertinently, the petitioners have also impleaded respondents No.5 and
6, the ACP and SHO of the area. However, counsel for the petitioners states
that no relief has been prayed for against the said respondents. Similarly, he
submits that no relief has been prayed for against the respondent No.1/UOI.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/DDA refers to Annexure R-
3 filed by the respondent No.7 alongwith his counter affidavit dated
19.08.2013 to clarify that the subject plot has not been assigned any number
by the DDA. Counsels for the parties state that it is in this background that
correction in paras 4, 5 and 6 of the order dated 18.03.2014 has been prayed
for.
7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed by clarifying that the
respondent No.7 is an allottee of plot No.50/4, Block No.II, WHS Industrial
Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, measuring 124 sq. meters. Additionally, the
respondent No.2/DDA had approved allotment of an additional parcel of
land to the respondent No.7 that is adjacent to the said plot, which has not
been assigned any specific number.
8. In view of the submission made by the counsels for the parties, who
jointly request that the error in the order dated 18.3.2014 be rectified in so
far as the description of the subject plot is concerned, it is directed that
wherever the subject plot has been mentioned in paras 4, 5 and 6 of the said
order, it shall be described as follows:-
"Plot adjacent to plot No.50/4, Block No.II, WHS Industrial Area,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi."
9. The second relief prayed for by the petitioners is for dismissal of the
writ petition. Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners states
that during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioners and the
respondent No.7 have arrived at an out of court settlement and therefore,
they do not wish to pursue the petition any further.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of alongwith the pending
application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
JANUARY 16, 2017
rkb/mk/ap
