Delhi High Court
Radha Soami Satsang Beas And Anr. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 13 June, 2018
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6579/2018
RADHA SOAMI SATSANG BEAS & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Senior Adv., with Mr.
Pramod Kumar Ahuja and Mr. H.S.
Sharma, Advocates.
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC (Civil)
for GNCTD.
Adv. For Supreme Court Monitoring
Committee/Respondent No. 4
(Appearance Not Given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 13.06.2018
Notice
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC (Civil) GNCTD, accepts notice
on advance service, on behalf of Respondent No.1-3. Counsel
representing Respondent No.4/Supreme Court Monitoring Committee
accepts notice.
Mr. Sanjeev Puri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to notices dated
19.02.2018, 01.03.2018 and 03.05.2018, issued by the Office of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate (Saket), to point out that the said notices do not
mention the names of the petitioners or the Khasra No.'s over which the
petitioners claim their lawful title. Learned Senior Counsel further
submits that work was awarded to M/s. Dhyani Consultants Inc. vide
letter No. SDM (Saket)/Demarcation/2017/7634 dated 11.12.2017 for
demarcation of Gram Sabha land pertaining to Village Asola, however,
the demarcation report dated 17.03.2018 is completely untenable as from
a bare perusal of the said demarcation report it transpires that the same
has been prepared even prior to the appointment of M/s Dhyani
Consultants Inc. In the said report, it has been stated that the demarcation
work was initiated on 25.10.2017 and had been completed on 03.11.2017,
however, the completion of demarcation on 03.11.2017 is contrary to the
respondent's own document as per which the demarcation process had to
commence on 29.11.2017.
Mr. Puri submits that the demarcation and demolition has been
carried out by the respondents without following the due process of law
and without verification of the properties and/or the chain of documents
and Revenue records as the petitioners were neither given a proper notice
regarding initiation of process of identification/demarcation nor any
objections were invited from them.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the demarcation of the land
has to be done as per procedure prescribed by the Delhi High Court Rules
under Chapter 1 Part M- Financial Commissioner's Instructions relevant
portion of which reads as under:
"(vi) When taking his measurements the Field Kanungo
should explain to the parties what he is doing and should
enquire from them whether they wish anything further to be
done to elucidate the matter in dispute. At the end, he should
record the statements of all the parties to the effect that they
have seen and understood the measurements that they have
no objection to make to this (or if they have any objection he
should record it together with his own opinion) and that they
do not wish to have anything further done on the spot. It
constantly happens that when the report comes before the
Court, one or other party impugns the correctness of the
measurements and asserts that one thing or another was left
undone. This raises difficulties which the above procedure is
designed to prevent."
Further reliance has been placed on the judgement of this Court in
Mr. Harbans Lal Gambhir and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority in
W.P.(C) 4576/1999 dated 03.09.2005., wherein it has been inter-alia
observed as under:
"Since valuable rights of the petitioners are affected as a
result of demarcation of land comprised in Khasra No.
87/14, in my opinion, any demarcation without prior
intimation to the petitioners would be in derogation of their
rights for the reason petitioners have a right to object to the
manner in which demarcation is carried out, if the same is
not carried out in terms of the notified guidelines pertaining
to demarcation. For example, during demarcation, a party
may object to the survey instrument used; a party may object
to the permanent site identified from where demarcation is
initiated; a party may object that the field book is not being
followed while carrying out demarcation."
Mr. Puri, further adds that it is clear from the record that there are
discrepancies in the demolition carried out by the respondents. Moreso
the demarcation is also to be carried out with prior intimation to the
petitioners but there is nothing on record to show that they have
participated in the same.
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that he is required to file a detailed affidavit. He further added
that the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the
concerned Deputy Commissioner, who shall deal with the objections
raised by the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners are
purposely not receiving the notices which are being issued to them and
they may be asked to do so. Mr. Naushad, learned counsel for the
respondent further adds that in case the petitioners are agreeable to this,
no demolition action shall be carried out and the representations would be
decided in time bound manner.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
they have no objection in accepting the notices and in appearing before
the concerned Deputy Commissioner.
Having heard the counsel for the parties and keeping in mind that it
would take sometime for the respondents to issue notice to the petitioners
which the petitioners have agreed to accept and appear before the
concerned Deputy Commissioner and file representations, if any, it is
directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners till 5th
July 2018.
Respondents shall file their counter affidavit before the next date of
hearing.
List on 5th July 2018 for further proceedings before the Roster
Bench.
Dasti, under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
JUNE 13, 2018//gr
