CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1995) 07 DEL CK 0039

South Delhi Citizens Forum and others vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 5 July 1995 · Citation: AIR 1996 Delhi 155

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Jain, J · Mahinder Narain, J
CASE NUMBER
C.Ms No. 4003-05/95 in C.W. 1924/93

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 351 words

Mahinder Narain, J.—C. M. 4005/ 95.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM. 4004/95.

2.

A public interest writ petition was decided by an order of the Division Bench of his Court comprising B. N. Kirpal and Arun Madan, JJ., on 29 October, 1993.

3.

That writ petition was numbered as C.W.P. 1924 of 1993 and has been filed by South Delhi Citizens Forum, inter alia, stating that despite acquisition of land measuring 316.9 acres in Kilokari, Khizrabad and Okhla, which was very valuable land, large scale encroachments have taken place which were not being removed by the D.D. A. or by the police.

4.

By the order dated 29 October, 1993, the writ petition was disposed of and direction was given to remove the encroachment in accordance with law.

5.

The applicant has now filed an application for intervention in the said decided writ petition asserting that he filed earlier a writ petition, and that his writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court (R.C. Lahoti and A. K. Srivastava, JJ.) with certain observations. The applicant relies upon the observations of the Division Bench that clarification can be obtained from the Bench which decided the case.

6.

The Division Bench which decided the original public interest petition is not sitting any more, as Justice B. N. Kirpal is now the Chief Justice of Gujarat, and Justice Arun Madan has been transferred to Rajasthan High Court. As such, this application has been placed before us.

7.

We are not satisfied that in a decided writ petition, which was a public interest petition, a person who could have made representation therein, and heard in that petition, and chosen not to do so, is entitled to (be) heard by us, especially in petition in which complaint was made that encroachments have taken place on the land vested in the Government.

8.

We are not inclined to entertain this application for intervention. The same is dismissed. CM. 4003/95.

9.

In view of the order passed in C.M. 4004/95, this application for stay of demolition is also dismissed.

10.

Order accordingly.