Shahid Ali vs Union Of India & Ors.
2019 Latest Caselaw 6225 Del

$~13
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                     Date of decision: 4th December, 2019

+      W.P.(C) 7545/2017
       SHAHID ALI & ANR.                            ..... Petitioners
                     Through:          Mr. Anwar Khalil, Adv. for
                                       petitioner no. 1
                                       Mr. Tariq Adeeb, Adv. for Delhi
                                       Waqf Board/petitioner no. 2
                          Versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                       ..... Respondents
                     Through:          Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with
                                       Mr. Jatin Teotia and Mr. Abhishek
                                       Yadav, Advs. for respondent no. 1
                                       Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
                                       for L & B Department
                                       Mr. Naushad Ahmed, ASC (Civil)
                                       with Ms. Manisha Chauhan, Adv.
                                       for GNCTD
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

                          ORDER

% 04.12.2019

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

1. This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred by the petitioner no. 1 for the properties belonging to petitioner no. 2 i.e. Delhi Waqf Board. Vide our order dated 11th December, 2017 Delhi Waqf Board was impleaded as petitioner no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 submits that the properties, which are mentioned in this writ petition, have been acquired by the respondents under the procedure

of Land and Acquisition Act, but no compensation has been paid. It is further submitted by the counsel for learned petitioner no. 2 that writ petition has been drafted originally by petitioner no. 1; and petitioner no. 2 was only impleaded as a party; hence, liberty may be reserved with the petitioner no. 2 to file a fresh proceeding with proper averments, allegations and annexures before the appropriate forum.

2. In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that this petitioner no. 1 has nothing to do with the properties of Delhi Waqf Board/petitioner no. 2, especially when the owner/petitioner no. 2 is vigilant. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition. Delhi Waqf Board is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

3. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

C.HARI SHANKAR, J DECEMBER 04, 2019 r.bararia