Anil Tyagi vs Delhi Development Authority and Others

A.K. Sikri, Acting Chief Justice

It is not in dispute that the land in question has already been acquired. Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in this behalf was

passed way back on 13th November, 1959, the declaration u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 18th March, 1966 and the award was passed by the

Land Acquisition Collector on 12th June, 1969. Inspite thereof, the petitioner is illegally occupying the subject premises, in these circumstances,

orders dated 21.11.2011 have been passed by the respondent/DDA calling upon the petitioner to remove his belongings from the said premises

i.e. S-530 School Block-II, Shakarpur, Delhi within 15 days from the passing of the order.

The appellant challenged this order by filing writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine vide impugned order

dated 8.12.2011. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, noted that it was the third round of litigation in respect of the same premises. The first writ

petition i.e. W.P. (C) 13426-27/2005 was filed by the petitioner and his brother Shri Sanjeev Tyagi. In that writ petition, the grievance was that

the MCD was proposing to take demolition and sealing action in respect of this very premises. This writ petition was disposed of on 16.2.2010 on

the statement of counsel for the DDA that the land in question had been acquired by the DDA by virtue of an award. This was disputed by the

petitioner. While disposing of the petition, direction was given to the petitioner to approach the DDA alongwith necessary documents to satisfy the

DDA with regard to their right and status over the land and the DDA was also directed to dispose of such representation within a period of six

weeks. The appellant thereafter submitted representation which was considered and order dated 8.4.2011 was passed thereupon by the Assistant

Director, DDA stating that the land in question had been acquired, possessed and placed at the disposal of the DDA vide Award No. 07/ 1969.

The appellant and his brother were called upon to remove the unauthorized construction. Second writ petition was filed challenging the order dated

8.4.2011 (W.P. 3944/2011). In this writ petition, prayer was made to grant another personal hearing (though one was granted at the time of

passing of order dated 8.4.2011 as well) and permission to the appellant and his brother to place on record all the relevant documents before the

DDA for it to pass a reasoned order. This request was acceded to and orders dated 1.6.2011 were passed directing the DDA to grant another

opportunity. Though in the mean time parties were directed to maintain status quo, consequently, order was also passed to this effect that in case

adverse order is passed against the appellant and his brother, the occupants would remove their belongings within a period of two week from the

date of passing of the order. The appellant and his brother were called upon to give an undertaking in terms of the said order which they had filed

in the Court.

It is this representation filed by the appellant pursuant to the aforesaid order which had now been dismissed vide impugned order dated

21.11.2011 passed by the DDA. We may record here that the appellant had now raised the contention that even when the land in question had

been acquired, the colony in which this land is situated itself was directed to be regularized and it was decided that construction carried out in the

said colony up to the year 1977 would also be regularized by the DDA as per the resolution passed by the Ministry of Works and Housing,

Government of India. On this premise, the submission of the appellant was that the possession of the premises could not be taken by the DDA as it

was protected by the said resolution. In the orders dated 21.11.2011, the DDA specifically dealt with this contention and negatived the same

observing that though School Block, Shakarpur Complex, was regularized vide resolution No. 107B, however, the said resolution clearly mentions

that any construction including the regularization plan which had come up for land owned by the DDA, MCD and Government of India could not

be considered as part of the approved plan and would be deleted. The DDA has also recorded in the said order that the premises in question was

a part of facilities and as such is a part of the number of lay out plan available in the record of the DDA and the same was dealt with shown to all

the concerned parties in the course of the hearing. This order also records that the appellant had purchased the land in question in the year 1986 as

per the documents produced by him which was much after the acquisition of the land and notification which was issued on 16.2.1972 u/s 22(1) of

the Delhi Development Act. Taking note of the aforesaid facts the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition observing that there is no

force in the contention of the appellant and the order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity therein which would require

interference by this Court in judicial review.

Para 7 of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge may be quoted at this stage:-

This Court has examined the order dated 21.11.2011. A perusal thereof shows that there is no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity therein which

requires interference by this Court in judicial review. It is neither disputed that the land in question was acquired vide Award No. 7/1969, nor is it

the case of the petitioner that the said Award was challenged by him or his brother. The grievance raised by the petitioner that the subject land if

acquired can only be treated as Nazul land by the respondent/DDA and that it cannot be used for any other purpose, cannot be a subject matter of

consideration in the present proceeding as the question to be considered here is whether the possession of the petitioner in the subject land is legal

and valid. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the undertaking given by the petitioner and his brother, as recorded in the order dated

01.06.2011 passed in W.P. (C) 3944/2011 that in the event of an adverse order being passed, both of them would vacate the subject land within

two weeks, while directing the petitioner to make compliances in terms of the aforesaid undertaking, the present petition is dismissed in limine as

being devoid of merits alongwith the pending application.

Argument before us remains the same which was advanced before the DDA as well as before the learned Single Judge namely the colony itself

is directed to be regularized and therefore the appellant is protected.

We do not find any force in this contention for the reasons noted by the learned Single Judge. Nothing could be argued which could shake the

foundation of a well reasoned order passed in the writ petition. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed.

No orders as to costs.