Delhi High Court
Puja Buildwell Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 March, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:-16.03.2018.
+ W.P.(C) 7676/2015
PUJA BUILDWELL PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Aman Nandrajog, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Suparna Srivastava with
Ms.Sanjna Dua, Advs. for R-1.
Mr.Satyakam, ASC for
GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a
direction to the respondents to restore the possession of his land,
which according to the petitioner, has been taken by the
respondents unauthorisedly in violating the demarcation already
carried out in the year 2004 vide which the land owned by the
petitioner was demarcated.
2. In support of his plea learned counsel for the petitioner
relies on a demarcation report dated 25.10.2004, vide which a
demarcation has been carried out in the presence of all the
parties. As per the said demarcation report, 12 bighas land
owned by Shri Ram Singh Sehrawat (the predecessor in interest
of the petitioner) was found to be in Khasra Nos.1729(5-12),
1730(3-14), 1731(2-14), 1732(3-4) and 1733(3-7) (18-11). The
said report also clearly states that land measuring 6 bighas in
Khasra Nos.1724(15/6) which belonged to the Forest
Department, was actually situated inside the boundary of the
property of Shri Ram Singh Sehrawat.
3. Mr.Nadrajog submits that the aforesaid 6 bighas
belonging to the Forest Department was also duly identified at
the time of demarcation carried out on 25.10.2014. He draws
my attention to the Demarcation Report dated 25.10.2004,
relevant extract whereof reads as under:-
"In the presence of the above stated persons, identification
proceedings of Khasra No. 1724-1728-1729-1730-1731-1732-1733
has been carried out as per the record and site. After completing the
identification proceedings, actual position is as under:-
S. Khasra No. and Name of the Remarks
No. Area owner
1. 1724 (59-6) Forest 1. About (6-0) is
Department lying situated
inside the
boundary of
Shri Ram Singh
Sehrawat
Note- Stay order
dated 13.08.2004
passed by the
Hon'ble High
Court in CWP
No.13422/2004.
2. Radha Krishan
Mandir lying
constructed in
the area
measuring
about (3-0).
3. Remaining 50-
6 under the
boundary of
Forest
Department,
passage and
vacant land.
2. 1728 (131-16) Forest Lying vacant at the
Department site.
Note- Stay order
granted by Hon'ble
High Court is lying
recorded at report
no.242 dated 25.09.97
in Khasra Girdawari.
3 1729 (5-12 Private 1. Khasra
1730 (3-14) No.1729 min to
1731 (2-14) 1733 min, total
1732 (3-4) area (12-0) is
1733 (3-7) situated inside
(18-11) the boundary
of Ram Singh
Sehrawat.
2. 1729 to 1732
min (6-11)
belongs to
Ustad Hafiz
Ali, is lying
vacant.
In the presence of all above stated persons, signs have been
got marked after getting satisfied with the Khasra nos. of the site and
with the consent of the persons present at the site, signs have been
marked at the place where property of Shri Ram Singh Sehrawat
measuring (12-0) and remaining (6-0) falls in Khasra no.1724 of
Forest Department. Identification of Khasra no. 1470 and 1629
could not be completed as the doors were not open. Rest of the
identification has already been complete.
Report is submitted.
4. By placing reliance on order dated 21.04.2006 passed by
this Court in W.P.(C) No.13422/2004, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the said demarcation report has
already attained finality and the respondents could not ignore
the said demarcation. He therefore, contends that despite the
demarcation having finalised in the year 2004, the respondents
have tried to demolish the petitioner's property and take
possession of the same land in the Khasras owned by him,
earlier owned by his predecessor in interest, Shri. Ram Singh
Sehrawat.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Satyakam, learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 while opposing the petition, denies that the
respondents are trying to demolish any property on the land in
Khasras belonging to the petitioner.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
respondents draws my attention to the averments made in Para 3
of the respondent's additional affidavit, wherein it has been
categorically stated that the respondents have no interest in the
land owned by the petitioner i.e. Khasra Nos.1729 min(2-18),
1730 min(1-17), 1731 min(0-18), 1732 min (3-0) and 1733 min
(3-7). At this stage it may be appropriate to reproduce the
relevant extract of Para 3 of the respondent's additional affidavit
which reads as under:-
"The averment made in Para 1 are agreed to the extent
that Khasra No. 1729 min (2-18), 1730 Min (1-17), 1731
Min (0-18), 1732 Min (3-0) and 1733 Min (3-7) are not
notified Forest Land and the respondent no.2 have not
interest in these lands bearing the abovementioned
Khasras. It is denied the claim that the officials of
Respondent no.2 exceeded their jurisdiction and in an
unauthorised and illegal manner entered jupon the land of
petitioner and demolished the boundary wall on
agricultural land belonging to the petitioner without any
authority of the law.
The abovemention Khasra Nos. are not notified Forest
Land but bound by a Forest land viz. Khasra no. 1728 lies
on the west and Khasra no.1724 lies on the East of these
Khasras.
Protection of forest land from encroachers and
restoration of already encroached Forest land are the
duty of the respondent no.2. On detection of encroachment
inside Forest land and Wild Life Sanctuary, decisions to
retrieve forest land was taken at the Secretary level in the
month of April 2014. After completing all ground
verification through Total Station Method (TSM) survey
on the basis of reference points shown by Revenue staffs,
the are of encroached Fores lands in three villages,
namely Asola, namely Asola, Maidangarhi, Sahoorpur
and Bhatti were identified. On the basis of TSM survey
maps, detection of area of encroached forest land was
done. The TSM survey maps for Asola showing the
boundaries of Khasra no. 1724, 1728, 1677, 1763 etc., is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure I.
After completing the physical identification through
TSM survey on the ground, DCF (S) issued notices to
illegal occupants of Forest Khasras, namely Khasra nos.
1724, 1728, 1677 and 1763. The notices issued to illegal
occupants of these Khasras are annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure II. The notices were issued to
individuals as well as in leading News paper. The notice
issued in New paper is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure III.
Thus unauthorized structures lying inside Khasra no.
1724, 1728, 1763 and 1677 were removed starting from
21.04.2014 onwards. Precautions were taken to identify
the boundary of Forest Land and Demolition drive was
carried out after giving prior notice to the encroachers.
No private lands were taken over. Only encroachments
identified through the abovementioned TSM survey were
demolished. During the demolition drive, road passing
through Khasra no. 1728 was destroyer for which no
private person has a right to claim."
7. Thus, the position which emerges from the record, is that
the petitioner is the owner of 12 bighas land situated in Khasra
Nos.1729-1733 in village Asola, whereas (6-11) bighas of land
in the said khasras belongs to one Ustad Hafiz Ali which was
found to be lying vacant at the time of demarcation and only 6
bighas land owned by the Forest Department in Khasra No.1724
which was found to be in the boundary of the petitioner's
predecessor. In view of the categoric stand taken by the
respondents, that they do not propose to demolish any property
constructed by the petitioner on land found to be woned by his
predecessor in the aforesaid four Khasra Nos.1729-1733, I find
that the present petition is wholly, without any cause of action
as the respondents are not trying to interfere with the possession
of land owned by the petitioner.
8. However, in case, the respondents seek to tinker with the
demarcation already finalised in October, 2004, the petitioner
would be at liberty, to challenge any subsequent demarcation,
by taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
MARCH 16, 2018/gm
