Delhi High Court
Man Mohan Diwan vs Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 21 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: August 21, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11928/2016 & C.M. 47041/2016
MAN MOHAN DIWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.P.Rana & Ms. Pooja Wason,
Advocates
Versus
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Chirag Madan & Ms.Ravleen
Sabharwal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. This petition has been listed today in terms of order of 15 th May,
2018. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the date of 29th August,
2018 fixed in this petition is cancelled and it is taken up for hearing today
itself.
2. Impugned order of 29th July, 2016 (Annexure-A) rejects petitioner's
revision petition against Warrants of Possession issued in respect of
petitioner's lands by observing that petitioner has failed to challenge the
conditional order of 27th September, 1999, which was made absolute on
18th July, 2000.
3. The grievance of petitioner is that the plea of execution
proceedings being initiated without notice to petitioner was urged before
the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, but it has not been considered in the
impugned order. Attention of this Court has been drawn by petitioner's
counsel to application (Annexure-G) under Section 81 of The Delhi Land
Reforms Act,1954 and order of 6th February, 2012 (Annexure-H) passed
thereon, which reveals that Warrants of Possession have been straight
away issued without notice to the owner of the subject land i.e. the
petitioner.
4. It is evident from the application (Annexure-G) that Warrants of
Possession had been issued in respect of order which was passed way
back in July, 2000. The mandate of Order 21, Rule 22 of CPC is that
when execution proceedings are initiated in respect of an order after a
period of two years, then service of Notice upon Judgment Debtor is
mandatory before the Warrants of Possession are executed. It has been
so reiterated by Supreme Court in Desh Bandhu Gupta Vs. N.L.Anand &
Rajinder Singh JT 1993 (5) S.C.313
5. Upon hearing, I find that impugned order cannot be sustained, as it
fails to take note of the afore-stated legal position. Evidently, the order
(Annexure-H) passed in execution proceedings, is without notice to
petitioner and so, execution proceedings cannot continue without notice.
Since now petitioner is aware of the execution proceedings being pending
against him, therefore, today' order be taken as notice to him. Objections,
if any, to the application (Annexure-G) be filed by petitioner within a
period of four weeks from today. Needless to say, execution proceedings
shall continue in accordance with the law.
6. With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed
of.
A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel representing both the
sides.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 21, 2018
r
