Vijay Sharma vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

Mukta Gupta, J.—The present appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 11th March, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 7318/2008.

The Appellant claims to be the owner of two plots bearing No. 27 and 27A measuring 400 sq. yards in Freedom Fighters'' Enclave, Village Neb Sarai, New Delhi by virtue of a General Power of Attorney and a subsequent sale deed and possession letter dated 8th February, 2006 from one Anil Malhotra who acted as attorney for one Arun Malhotra. On 12th October, 2006 a public notice was found pasted outside the boundary wall of the Appellant which reads as under:

PUBLIC NOTICE

Whereas Kh. No. 96 min of vill Neb Sarai is a Gaon Sabha Land.

AND

WHEREAS an ejectment Order dt. 06-10-2006 has been passed by the Revenue Assistant (HK) against the encroacher of Kh. No. 96m, of village Neb Sarai.

AND

WHEREAS it has been found after demarcation carried out by the revenue staff that some persons have unauthorizedly encroached on Gaon Sabha land by constructing pucca houses/structures and boundary walls upon Gaon Sabha land of Kh. No. 96m of village Neb Sarai.

AND

WHEREAS on scrutiny of records of allotment of Gaon Sabha land of Village Neb Sarai, it has been found that above noted Kh. No. were never allotted to any body.

AND

NOW THEREFORE, the unauthorized encroachers of above said Kh. Nos. are hereby directed to remove the unauthorized construction from above said Kh. Nos. of village Neb Sarai immediately failing which necessary action as per law shall be taken by this office and the cost of demolition shall be recovered from the encroachers. In case there is any order issued by any Court, in respect of the above said land of village Chattarpur, the same may be brought to the notice of the undersigned.

SD/-

(A.K. SHARMA)

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

(SOUTH)

Concerned (Kamlesh Behl)

Kh. No. 96m, Village Neb Sarai

Though the public notice was dated 12th October, 2006, the Appellant took no steps to challenge it and only in October, 2008 he filed the above mentioned writ petition seeking mandamus to the Respondents, not to demolish the property of the Appellant being room and boundary wall of property No. 27A, Block-A, Village Neb Sarai, New Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yards and quashing of the impugned Public Notice No. 1129 dated 12th October, 2006. When the writ petition came up for hearing before this Court, the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 17th October, 2008 directed the Appellant to file the photographs of the property in question and an affidavit in support thereof. Subsequently on 26th February, 2009 a direction was issued by this Court to the Respondents restraining them, from demolishing the Appellant''s property or in any manner disturbing its possession.

After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 11th March, 2010 dismissed the writ petition on the basis of photographs, which showed, only a temporary structure of bricks, newly constructed with open door and window with vegetation all around and held that it was hardly a permanent habitable structure with only one room, no occupation and plants/bushes all over. It was also held that the Appellant cannot encroach the Gaon Sabha land and claim benefit of regularization.

The main ground of challenge to the impugned order before us by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that on the said date i.e. 11th March, 2010 other connected matters relating to the same area were also listed before the learned Single Judge, however, the said matters were adjourned and the Appellant''s writ petition was dismissed. It is also contended that the present area is listed on the list of colonies due for regularization and hence the impugned notice should be quashed.

On a perusal of the counter affidavit of the Respondents filed before the learned Single Judge, it is evident that the land in question is a Gaon Sabha land and it had never been allotted to ''Freedom Fighters'' Cultural Centre'' (in short ''FFCC'') and thus its allotment to Arun Malhotra from FFCC or subsequent sale to the Appellant is of no consequence.

We do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that it is a Gaon Sabha land and the Government is entitled to reclaim it. The learned Single Judge also rightly dismissed the claim of parity of the appellant with other cases as each case will have to be dealt in accordance to its own facts.

We find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.