Delhi High Court
Phool Singh (Deceased) Thr Nain ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 20 November, 2017
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.11.2017
+ LPA 713/2016
PHOOL SINGH (DECEASED) THR NAIN
SINGH ..... Appellant
Through : Mr Naresh Thanai, Advocate.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
DELHI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through : Mr Ajay Verma, Advocate for
the DDA.
Ms Mini Pushkarna, Advocate
for MCD.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The Appellant had approached this Court in a Writ Peition claiming
an order that the land use in respect of 13 biswa of land measuring 650
sq.yds., forming the part of Khasra No.50/1, Humayunpur, is residential
and that the land use shown in the Zonal and lay-out Development Plan,
was consequently illegal.
2. The Single Judge declined relief essentially on the ground that the
Appellant's claim, having regard to the suit filed by one Khazan Singh
against him, was suspect. It was submitted that during pendency of this
appeal, the suit has for possession been decreed against the Appellant and
Appellants have filed an appeal against the Decree.
3. Mr Thanai, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon the record
to say that the suit lands were the subject-matter of acquisition; apparently
the acquisition proceedings, to the extent of the land, were quashed on a
finding by this Court, in a Writ Petition decided on 24.02.1999 {W.P.(C)
No.1270/1989}, that the invocation of the urgency clause of Section 17 of
the Land Acquisition Act was contrary to the law.
4. The Appellant then subsequently had sought an injunction against
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which was declined. In the course of
those proceedings, the Court had then recorded that the petitioner was
unauthorized occupant. It is pointed out that the observations of the Single
Judge with respect to the nature of the lands being part of the 'green area'
notified as such in the Zonal and lay-out Development Plan would come in
the way. Counsel highlights that these observations would be an
impediment even if the Appeal filed against the decree for possession is
allowed.
5. Counsel for the Delhi Development Authority and the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi submit that as on date, there cannot be any denial that
the Zonal and lay-out Development Plan reflects that the area is notified as
'green area' and that the question of granting any building sanction to the
Appellant does not arise. It is submitted that having regard to the existing
state on the record, i.e., the declaration and decree for possession by the
Civil Court, no relief even for change in the Zonal and lay-out
Development Plan can be sought.
6. The Court is of the opinion that the question, as to whether the
petitioner/Appellant could have sought for change in the Zonal and lay-out
Development Plan or even a direction that its inclusion in the 'green area'
is illegal, is purely academic. The Appellant conceded to a decree, adverse
to him, which had the result of the third party, i.e. Khazan Singh being
declared owner.
7. This Court is of the opinion that the Single Judge, having held that
the petitioner/appellant's title were suspect, the Single Judge need not have
proceeded further to record findings with respect to the nature of suit lands
as that invariably had the effect of precluding any request in future with
respect to reliefs such as de-notification, which could have been sought.
8. In the circumstances, it is open to the Appellant - having regard to
the final outcome of the Appeal filed before the High Court (RFA
No.525/2017) to approach the respondent - authorities for such reliefs, as
may be permissible in accordance with law; in the event of success.
Nothing stated by the Single Judge, especially the observations in
paragraph 15 shall preclude the Appellant from making such request.
9. All rights and contentions of the parties in such event are kept open.
10. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
'Sn'
