Full Text
Date of Decision: 29.04.2013 W.P.(C) No.2680/2013
MANGAL SAIN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through:Mr.Anip Sachthey with Mr.Mohit Paul, Advocate.
Through:Mr.T.Mitra for Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
CM No (to be numbered)(u/O VI Rule 17 CPC)
This is an application for amendment of the petition. The petitioners want to amend the petition so as to implead Shri Dev Dutt Sharma and others as party to the petition. Heard. Allowed. The amended petition is taken on record.
The application stands disposed of.
Mr.Dev Dutt Sharma and some other persons filed a suit under Section 81, 84 and 86A of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 before the SDM/Revenue Assistant, 2013:DHC:2135 seeking ejectment of respondents No.1 and 2 in that suit, namely, Mangal Sain and
Ravinder Sain, from the land comprised in Khasra No.37/18/1 min measuring
1600 sq. mtr. of Village Karawal Nagar, Delhi – 110 094, on the allegation that they had encroached upon the aforesaid land and used the same for a purpose other than a purpose connected with agriculture. They also sought restoration of the aforesaid land to Gaon Sabha by proper demarcation, besides damages equivalent to the cost of rendering the aforesaid land capable of being used for agriculture purposes etc.
2. It appears that an application in the aforesaid suit was filed by Gaon Sabha for transposition as the plaintiff in that suit. That application came to be allowed by the SDM/Revenue Assistant, vide order dated 6.2.2013. An appeal was filed by the petitioners before this Court who are defendants/respondents No.1 and 2 in the suit pending before the SDM, challenging the order dated 6.2.2013. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that along with the appeal, they have also filed an application seeking stay of the proceedings pending before SDM/Revenue Assistant. However, copy of the aforesaid application is not on record.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the appeal was filed way back on 13.2.2013, it has not taken up for hearing by the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)(North-East) as a result of which, there is an apprehension that the SDM/Revenue Assistant may dispose of the suit pending before him on 1.5.2013, which is the next date of hearing before him. The petitioners have an interim protection from this Court till the matter is decided by the Revenue Assistant/SDM but the said protection, according to the learned counsel, would not be available any more after the suit is decided by the SDM/Revenue Assistant.
4. In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of, with the direction that Deputy Commissioner(Revenue) (North-East) Delhi shall take up the appeal filed by the petitioners for hearing on 1st May, 2013 and pass such order as he may deem it appropriate on the application seeking stay of the proceedings pending before him. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master. V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 29, 2013 ks