Delhi High Court
Shiya Khanna vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 26 February, 2018
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 26.2.2018
W.P.(C) 1770/2018, C.M. APPL..7353-7354/2018
SHIYA KHANNA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sonal Anand with Mr. Ayush
Sai, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC,
GNCTD with Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee,
Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.7353/2018 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 1770/2018, CM APPL.7354/2018
2. Issue notice. Mr. Gautam Narayan, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondents. In view of the order that I propose to
pass, learned counsel says no counter affidavit is required.
W.P.(C) 1770/2018 Page 1 of4
3. The petitioner assails the notice dated 13.2.2018 on the
ground that no notice was given to her before issuing the
impugned notice. Via the impugned notice, the respondents had
called upon the petitioner to vacate 26 feet of the notified forest
area which falls in khasra No.651 in Neb Sarai village.
3.1 The petitioner's case is that the subject property in its
entirety falls in khasra no.512.
4. Mr. Gautam Narayan, on the other hand, says that while a
large portion of the subject property falls in khasra no.512, a
part of the said property, that is, about 26 feet falls in the forest
area as is adverted to in the impugned notice.
4.1 Furthermore, Mr. Narayan says that the proceedings for
removal of unauthorised occupants from the notified forest area
gathered the momentum pursuant to the judgment of the
Division Bench dated 24.1.2018, passed in FAO (OS)
200/2017, titled : Prabhat Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. GNCTD &
Anr.
4.2 In this context, Mr. Narayan draws my attention to
paragraph 57 of the Division Bench judgment to demonstrate
that demarcation report dated 7.6.2017 was taken into
consideration by the Court.
4.3 Furthermore, Mr. Narayan also draws my attention to
paragraph 16 of the very same judgment wherein there is a
W.P.(C) 1770/2018 Page 2 of4
reference to the five applications moved by the petitioner
herein.
4.4 It is, therefore, Mr. Narayan's submission that the
petitioner was aware of the demarcation report dated 7.6.2017,
contrary to the stand taken in the writ petition. The petitioner's
counsel, on the other hand, takes the stand that the copy of the
demarcation report was not served on him or the petitioner.
5. Be that as it may, two things are clear. First, that the
exercise of demarcating the forest area has already been done
and second, that the Division Bench has directed clearance of
the the notified forest area of all illegal occupants. The only
issue which was for consideration in this writ petition is:
whether the petitioner occupies 26 feet of the notified forest
area as is indicated in the impugned notice?
6. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
with the direction to the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)/
respondent no.2 to hear the petitioner and examine the material
put forth by her, and thereafter, pass an order as to whether the
contested area which is the subject matter of the impugned
notice dated 13.2.2018 falls within the confines of the notified
forest area.
6.1 In order to facilitate this exercise and to remove any
lingering doubts as to whether the petitioner was served with
the copy of the demarcation report, Mr. Narayan has furnished a
W.P.(C) 1770/2018 Page 3 of4
fresh copy of the demarcation report to the counsel for the
petitioner.
6.2 Furthermore, to expedite the proceedings, the petitioner
will appear before the Deputy Commissioner
(Revenue)/respondent no.2 on 6.3.2018 at 11:00AM. The
Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)/respondent no.2 will hear the
petitioner, as indicated above, and examine the materials placed
before him. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the
determination made by the Deputy Commissioner
(Revenue)/respondent no.2, he will take recourse to an
appropriate remedy, albeit, in accordance with law, as provided
in the governing statute. Pending this determination, the
impugned notice qua the petitioner will not be given effect to.
6.3 Since, the Division Bench has sought compliance from the
respondents and the matter is listed before the said Bench on
20.3.2018 for reporting compliance, this exercise will be
completed by the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)/respondent
no.2 by 12.3.2018.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2018
/vikas/
W.P.(C) 1770/2018 Page 4 of4
