Full Text
W.P.(C) 7231/2015
SHAEDA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parvej with Mr. Firoj & Mr. J.
Chandra, Advs.
Through: Mr. Jayendra, Adv. for R-1/SDMC.
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Adv. for R-2.
31.07.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Though the petition is filed seeking mandamus to the respondent No.1 South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) and to the respondent No.2 Police to take action with respect to the construction, allegedly unauthorized, being carried on by the respondent No.3 Haji Phulwa Chaudhary on plots of land i) ad-measuring 200 sq. yds. at Khasra No.735, ii) ad-measuring 100 sq.yds. at Khasra No.716, and iii) ad-measuring 30 sq.yds. at Khasra No.716 all situated at B-128, Kilokari Village, Kilokari, New Delhi but at the same time, it is stated that the petitioner is a co-owner of the said properties along with the respondent No.3HajiPhulwaChaudhary. W.P.(C) 7231/2015 2015:DHC:6119 The petition is thus actuated by a desire to settle the dispute as to coownership between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 Haji Phulwa Chaudhary.
2. I have for detailed reasons given in the order dated 30th July, 2015 in W.P.(C) Nos.6495/2015 and 6494/2015 titled Naeem Ahmed Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Rohan Sharma Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation held that the public law remedy of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in these circumstances.
3. The petition is thus dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy under the generallawforallthereliefsclaimedinthis petition.
4. It is further clarified that the dismissal of this petition shall not constitute a licence to the respondent No.3 Haji Phulwa Chaudhary or any other person for carrying on unauthorized construction and shall not relieve the respondent No.1 SDMC of its statutory obligations in this regard.
5. No costs. Dasti.