Delhi High Court
Sain Mahasabha Naraini Dham vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 September, 2018
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11.09.2018
+ LPA 508/2018
SAIN MAHASABHA NARAINI DHAM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Pandey, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mahender Kr. Bhardwaj with
Mr. K.C. Dubey, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Ajay Verma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr. Nirvikar Verma,
Advocate for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
RAJENDRA MENON, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
CM APPL. 35946/2018 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
LPA No.508/2018 & CM No.35945/2018 (Stay)
1. Seeking exception to an order passed by the learned writ Court on
12.01.2018 in a pending writ petition clarifying that respondent No.7 is not
interdicted in removing any encroachment on DDA land, this appeal has
been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
2. A perusal of the prayer made in the writ petition filed by the appellant
goes to show that the appellant (a trust) was aggrieved by non-consideration
of their representation and inability of the authorities in holding election to
the trust/society in time and particular act of respondent No.13 of the writ
petition in not proceeding to hold election to the office of trust in question.
Finding respondent No.13 in the original writ petition to have disobeyed
certain orders passed in the matter of filing of the affidavit and bringing on
record the statement of accounts of the trust, notice has been issued to
respondent No.13 as to why contempt action should not be taken against him
and in the meanwhile, he has been restrained from withdrawing any fund
from the bank account of the society or the daanpatra. However, while
doing so in para (7) the learned writ Court has issued the following
clarifications:
"7. It is also clarified that respondent no.7 is not interdicted in
removing any encroachment on the DDA land."
3. Grievance of the appellant is that this clarification would result in
DDA taking action against the appellant society for removal of the
encroachment.
4. In our considered view the question of encroachment is not an issue
pending in the writ petition and as DDA was a party in the writ petition it
seems that in the counter affidavit filed DDA has indicated various aspects
with regard to encroachment. Taking note of these averments of the DDA as
a measure of abandoned precaution, the learned writ Court has only clarified
the position as reproduced hereinabove and in doing so in our considered
view no error has been committed by the writ Court.
5. The question of encroachment on DDA's land and the right available
to the DDA to remove the encroachment is not a lis pending in the writ
Court and, therefore, if the aforesaid clarification is only to avoid confusion
in the matter, the same cannot be faulted with. In case the appellant has any
grievance with regard to action that may be taken by the DDA, it will be a
different cause of action and the appellant can always take recourse to the
remedies available under law for the said cause.
6. Accordingly, in view of the reasons indicated hereinabove, we see no
reason to make any indulgence into the matter. The appeal along with
pending application stands dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2018/ns
