Delhi High Court
Tilak Raj vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 18 May, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 18.05.2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ W.P.(C) 7673/2022 & CM APPLs. 23516/2022, 23517/2022
MUNESH KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta & Mr. Ajjay Arora,
Advocates for SDMC
+ W.P.(C) 7674/2022 & CM APPLs. 23518/2022, 23519/2022
PARVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS
COMMISSIONER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta & Mr. Ajjay Arora,
Advocates for SDMC
+ W.P.(C) 7675/2022 & CM APPLs. 23521/2022, 23522/2022
GYAN RATTAN AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 7673/2022 & connected matters Page 1 of 4
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:20.05.2022
13:02:14
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta & Mr. Ajjay Arora,
Advocates for SDMC
+ W.P.(C) 7676/2022 & CM APPLs. 23523/2022, 23524/2022
SHAKUNTLA GAUTAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta & Mr. Ajjay Arora,
Advocates for SDMC
+ W.P.(C) 7677/2022 & CM APPLs. 23525/2022, 23526/2022
TILAK RAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta & Mr. Ajjay Arora,
Advocates for SDMC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:20.05.2022
13:02:14
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petitions have been filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of
notices dated 12.02.2021/17.02.2021 issued by respondent No. 1 as well
as the order(s) dated 16.04.2021 passed by the ATMCD. Other connected
reliefs are also sought by the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the notices dated
12.02.2021/17.02.2021 were issued to the petitioners, thereby directing
removal of encroachment from public passage/street in view of the order
dated 14.01.2020 passed in CS No.56897/2016 (Old No. 323/14). During
the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance on the orders dated 13.07.2021 & 10.05.2022 passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) 6436/2021 & W.P.(C) 4243/2021 respectively.
3. Issue notice.
4. Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No. 1/SDMC. He has taken a preliminary objection to the
filing of the present petitions, by submitting that the petitioners had
assailed notices dated 12.02.2021/17.02.2021 before the ATMCD and
the challenge to the same came to be decided vide order dated
16.04.2021 passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
He further submits that in terms of the decision of the Supreme
Court in Amrik Singh Lyallpuri v. Union of India and Others reported as
(2011) 6 SCC 535, the petitioners' remedy against order dated
16.04.2021 lies before the learned District Judge. Learned counsel has
also drawn the attention of the Court to the statements of the petitioners
made on 03.09.2016/16.09.2016 in CS No. 56897/16, wherein each of
them stated as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:20.05.2022
13:02:14
"I am applicant in the application under Order 1 rule 10
r/w 151 CPC for impleading me as a defendant in the
instant case. I have gone through the statement of the
plaintiffs recorded on 03/09/2016. I have no objection, if
SDMC removes the encroachment at the suit property as
per their lay-out plan filed on record by SDMC i.e., Ex. X. I
undertake to cooperate the SDMC in removal of the
encroachment from the suit property as per lay-out plan Ex.
X even if, it is prejudiced to my rights over the suit property.
I am making my statement voluntarily without any undue
influence, without any fear, force or coercion. The statement
has been explained to me in vernacular."
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/SDMC further submits that
the petitioners' reliance on the aforementioned orders of this Court is
misplaced, inasmuch as the factum of their making statements before the
Civil Court was not brought to the notice of the Court.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners, without prejudice
to the rights and contentions of the petitioners, seeks leave to withdraw
the present petitions with liberty to approach the learned District Judge to
seek the appropriate relief.
7. Leave and liberty, as prayed for, are granted.
8. In the meantime, for the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy
under law, no precipitate action be taken in pursuance of notices dated
12.02.2021/17.02.2021 for a period of one week from today.
9. The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, alongwith the pending
applications.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
MAY 18, 2022
p'ma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:20.05.2022
13:02:14
