Shri Sunil Singh vs South Delhi Municipal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1030 Del

                                      $~41
                                      *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                                             Judgment delivered on: 25.03.2021

                                      +      W.P.(C) 3868/2021 & CM APPL. 11665/2021
                                             SHRI SUNIL SINGH                                    ..... Petitioner

                                                                versus

                                             SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
                                                                                 ..... Respondents

                                      Advocates who appeared in this case:

                                      For the Petitioner:       Mr. Arun Kumar Verma, Advocate (through VC)

                                      For the Respondent:       Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Standing Counsel with Ms.
                                                                Yamini Mittal, Advocate for SDMC.
                                                                Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta with Mr. Tanmay Yadav,
                                                                Advocates for R-2.

                                      CORAM:
                                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                                                                       JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent Nos.1 t o 4 t o t ake act ion against alleged illegal and unauthorised construction and encroachment being raised by respondent Nos.5 & 6 on the subject property.

2. In response to the query as to the locus of the petitioner, it is

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KUNAL MAGGU Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:48:52

This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.

contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that pet itioner h as en tered into agreement to sell with respondent Nos.5 & 6 for purchase of a port ion of the property and some advance has also been paid. He submits that general public has informed that respondent Nos.5 & 6 are not the owners of the property and there is a dispute of their title. He submits that if respondent No. 4 were to confirm the title of respondents 5 and 6 then Petitioner sh all pay the balance amount and purchase the property.

3. There appears to be a private civil dispute between the petitioner an d respondent Nos.5 & 6 with whom petitioner is alleged to have an agreement to sell. Petition also involves disputed questions of fact.

4. This Court is not inclined to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a private civil dispute between privat e parties or entertain a petition involving disputed questions of fact. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MARCH 25, 2021 rk

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KUNAL MAGGU Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:48:52

This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.