Delhi High Court
Ram Kishan & Anr vs Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors on 10 December, 2019
$~A-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 10.12.2019
+ W.P.(C) 2976/2018
RAM KISHAN & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Praveen Kumar No.2(Adv.)
versus
DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD & ORS. .... Respondents
Through Mr.Tarveen Singh Nanda, Standing
Counsel with Mr.Ankur Mishra, Adv.
for R-1/DCB.
Mr.Jasmeet Singh, CGSC for R-4 &
R-7.
Ms.Puja Kalra, Adv. for R-6/North
DMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners to declare respondents
No.5 and 6, namely, North DMC as the lawful municipality on the
petitioners‟ private land and to quash the illegal, malicious, arbitrary, etc.
sealing order dated 12.02.2018, and notice dated 07.03.2018 under section
320 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 for mandatory demolition. Other
connected reliefs are also sought.
2. Petitioner No.2, who is an advocate, appears in person. Essentially,
the case of the petitioners is that on his property, which is CB-97 forming
part of khasra No.960, Village Naraina, Delhi, the Delhi Cantonment Board
has no jurisdiction. Petitioner relies upon the document, namely, Shajra
W.P.(C) 2976/2018 Page 1 of 6
Mauza of Village Naraina, Delhi to state that the property in question as
indicated in Shajra is falling outside the jurisdiction of the Delhi
Cantonment Board. Based on the above, it is pleaded that the Delhi
Cantonment Board has no jurisdiction on the property in question.
3. Respondent No.4/Defence Estate Officer, which is the concerned
department has filed their affidavit on 19.03.2019 stating that an award
No.19/75-76 under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter
referred to as the 'LA Act') was passed pertaining to land measuring 661
bighas 9 biswas at Village Naraina which was acquired by Delhi
Administration. Affidavit also states that physical possession of the land
measuring 587 bighas 6 biswas out of the land measuring 683 bighas 9
biswas was acquired and handed over to the Army in presence of Board
Officers on 15.12.1977. The possession of the land bearing khasra No.960
measuring 1 bigha 9 biswas stated to be built up but the same has not been
taken over/handed over.
4. Respondent No.6/North DMC has also filed a status report where it
has been stated that the said property does not fall under the jurisdiction of
North DMC and the said respondent has no role to play qua the said
property.
5. The petitioner who appears in person has vehemently argued that the
award in question has lapsed under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has however pointed
out that there is a civil dispute pending before the trial court which has been
filed by Sh.Manish Kumar, a neighbour of the petitioner. One of the issues
W.P.(C) 2976/2018 Page 2 of 6
pending in the suit is whether the land of the petitioner falls within the
Cantonment Board. A petition being CM(M) 868/2018 decided on
09.05.2019, had been filed by the petitioner pertaining to the said suit. This
court had directed framing of an issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Delhi
Cantonment Board over the land in question. It is further pleaded that as this
is a disputed question of fact, it is appropriate that the civil court may
adjudicate the said dispute which is pending before the civil court. He has
also pointed out that in view of the aforenoted order dated 09.05.2019 of this
court, the trial court had to dispose of the suit within six months from the
date of appearance before the trial court.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further states that the petitioners
have challenged the award in question by filing a writ petition being
W.P.(C) 1318/2018 but withdrew the writ petition meaning thereby the
award has attained finality.
8. The petitioner however vehemently urges that the acts of the
respondents are illegal. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of S.R.Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1 and Tata
Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651.
9. In the course of hearing, the petitioner states that against the order of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this court dated 09.05.2019 in CM(M) 868/2018,
he had filed an SLP bearing No.19892/2019 before the Supreme Court. On
being asked about the order passed by the Supreme Court, he is unable to
give any copy of the order but states that expeditious disposal of the suit in
question has been directed. Thereafter, a copy of the order of the Supreme
Court passed in the said SLP was taken out from the internet. A perusal of
the order dated 26.08.2019 passed in SLP 19892/2019 shows that direction
W.P.(C) 2976/2018 Page 3 of 6
has been passed to dispose of the suit in question within three months.
10. It is quite obvious that entire issue is pending before the trial court in
a suit filed by a neighbour of the petitioner against the petitioner. This is
evident from the order dated 09.05.2019 passed in CM(M) 868/2018 filed by
the petitioner herein. Relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
"4. Hence, the dispute is if the property of the petitioner falls
within the Cantonment area or not, which needs to be tested on
the anvil of evidence of both the parties. Hence, it is agreed to
by the learned counsel for the petitioner the matter be sent to the
learned Trial Court and a specific issue qua jurisdiction of the
Delhi Cantonment Board over the land in question be also
framed along with other issues, per pleadings of parties and suit
be decided within three months as the property of the petitioner
has since been sealed. The learned counsel for the respondents
also conceded to above."
11. Against the above order, an SLP bearing No.19892/2019 was filed by
the petitioner herein. The same was disposed of vide order dated 26.08.2019
with the following directions:
" We do not incline to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is,
accordingly dismissed.
We are told that the High Court had directed the Trial
Court to dispose of the suit within three months. If the suit is
not decided within three months it be decided latest by
30.11.2019.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of."
12. It is clear from the above that the issue as to whether the land of the
petitioners falls under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Cantonment Board or not
is a question on which issue has been framed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this court for adjudication by the trial court. The Supreme Court has now
W.P.(C) 2976/2018 Page 4 of 6
directed that the suit be decided latest by 30.11.2019. On a query, the
petitioner is unable to inform the court about the present status of the suit
before the trial court.
13. It is settled law that when there is a disputed question as to facts of a
case, it is not for the writ court to get into this issue. Reference in this regard
may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of „Real
Estate Agencies v. State of Goa & Ors, (2012) 12 SCC 170. The court held
as follows:
"17. However, there is no universal rule or principle of law
which debars the writ court from entertaining adjudications
involving disputed questions of fact. In fact, in the realm of legal
theory, no question or issue would be beyond the adjudicatory
jurisdiction under Article 226, even if such adjudication would
require taking of oral evidence. However, as a matter of
prudence, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,
normally would not entertain a dispute which would require it to
adjudicate the contested questions and conflicting claims of the
parties to determine the correct facts for due application of the
law. In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee
Corpn. of India Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 553] , the precise position of
the law in this regard has been explained in paras 16, 17 and 19
of the judgment in the course of which the earlier views of this
Court in Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee,
Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC 769] and Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.
Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC 582] has
been referred to."
14. In my opinion, it would be appropriate that the issue i.e. whether the
land of the petitioner is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi
Cantonment Board should be heard and adjudicated by the concerned trial
court. Once the decision is taken by the trial court/appellate court, the
petitioners will be free to take steps to challenge the alleged illegal order
passed by the Delhi Cantonment Board, if any such issue survives.
W.P.(C) 2976/2018 Page 5 of 6
15. With the above direction the present petition stands disposed of. All
pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J.
DECEMBER 10, 2019/v
