Subhash Chand and Another vs Financial Commissioner and Others

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—The petitioners, who are both residents of village Mohammedpur, Munirka, New Delhi, apprehend that their property situated in Khasra No.1361/202, measuring 4 bighas 14 bids was would be demolished by the respondent/DDA and that is why they have approached this Court. This matter has a little background in the sense that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by way of writ petition being CW18/2003. That writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 10.01.2003 with the direction that demarcation be carried out. The process of demarcation was thereafter started and it culminated in the demarcation report dated 26.06.2003 submitted by the ADM (South-West). However, the petitioners were aggrieved by the demarcation report and they filed their objections before the learned ADM (South-West) on 11.07.2003. Since their objections were not being heard, they filed a revision petition bearing no. 181/2003 before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi. On 08.08.2003 the Financial Commissioner issued notices to the respondents in the said revision petition pending before him. The notices were made returnable on 26.12.2003. It is during the pendency of the proceedings before the Financial Commissioner that the petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent no.1 (Financial Commissioner) to dispose of the stay application filed by the petitioners in the said revision petition titled as ''Subhash Chand & Anrs. v. Financial Commissioner and Ors'' pending before him. The petitioners have also sought a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the respondents from proceeding on the basis of the demarcation report dated 26.06.2003 till the decision is arrived at by respondent no.1 in the revision petition pending before him.

In view of the fact that the proceedings are already pending before the Financial Commissioner and he is seized of the matter both on merits as well as on the question of stay, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere by way of this writ petition. However, in view of the fact that there is imminent danger of the petitioners'' property being demolished, it is directed that the respondent no.1 may put up the stay application moved by the petitioners for hearing at an early date and dispose of the same in accordance with the law. It goes without saying that respondent/DDA shall co-operate in the proceedings pending before the Financial Commissioner and the DDA shall also be interested in an early disposal of the stay application filed by the petitioners so that they may thereafter take appropriate action in accordance with law.

With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

dusty to both the parties.