Full Text
Translation output
\ ':o 'rf #39 o/oL6.O9.?OLT Present: Mr. Subodh K.Pathak abd Mr. Akhileshwar Pandey, Advocates for the petitioner.
. Mr. Himanshu Bajaj and Mr.Karan Bindra, Advocates for the respondents.
C.M.No.13668/20LL (Exe)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No. 6786/2OLL and C.M.No.L3669/2O1-1 (Stav)
By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to restrain the respondent No.2 from sealing the hutment and dispossessing the petitioner from hutments/portions of the graveyard land bearing No.C-95/5, Udasin Mandir, Aram
Bagh, 'I' point junction of Mandir Marg, Punchquian Road, New Delhi.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is son of Shri Lal Man who had already expired. He further submits that petitioner is in occupation of land forming part of graveyard situated at
W.P.(C) No. 5786/2011 page I of2 2011:DHC:16464
,\ Z ,-r C-95/5, Aram Bagh, I Point, Punchquian Road, New Delhi.
Counsel further submits that petitioner has already submitted reply to the notice dated 28frJune, 2011.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Let necessary objections along with documentary proof, if any, be submitted by the petitioner with respondent No.2 in response to letter dated 28thJune,20It.
It is also directed that any action of dispossession or sealing, etc., shall be taken by the respondent only after following due process of law.
With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall appear before the Authority concerned within a period of one week from the date of this order.
A copy of this order be given dasti.
September L6, z0tl SK W.P.(C) No. 5786/2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
7 t.,x,. cg l-?of l/ | | U&'h'^|"^ & d,/t s o,b {v4 page 2 of2
G ?<.iirl'l'r, bwb$' 4 $-t2 HIGH COURT OF DELHI w.P.(c) 67B6|20LL
SHYAM NARAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.K. Pathak, Adv.
. Mr. Himanshu Bajaj and Mr.Karan Bindra, Advocates for the respondents.
C.M.No.13668/20LL (Exe)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No. 6786/2OLL and C.M.No.L3669/2O1-1 (Stav)
By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to restrain the respondent No.2 from sealing the hutment and dispossessing the petitioner from hutments/portions of the graveyard land bearing No.C-95/5, Udasin Mandir, Aram
Bagh, 'I' point junction of Mandir Marg, Punchquian Road, New Delhi.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is son of Shri Lal Man who had already expired. He further submits that petitioner is in occupation of land forming part of graveyard situated at
W.P.(C) No. 5786/2011 page I of2 2011:DHC:16464
,\ Z ,-r C-95/5, Aram Bagh, I Point, Punchquian Road, New Delhi.
Counsel further submits that petitioner has already submitted reply to the notice dated 28frJune, 2011.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Let necessary objections along with documentary proof, if any, be submitted by the petitioner with respondent No.2 in response to letter dated 28thJune,20It.
It is also directed that any action of dispossession or sealing, etc., shall be taken by the respondent only after following due process of law.
With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall appear before the Authority concerned within a period of one week from the date of this order.
A copy of this order be given dasti.
September L6, z0tl SK W.P.(C) No. 5786/2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
7 t.,x,. cg l-?of l/ | | U&'h'^|"^ & d,/t s o,b {v4 page 2 of2
G ?<.iirl'l'r, bwb$' 4 $-t2 HIGH COURT OF DELHI w.P.(c) 67B6|20LL
SHYAM NARAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.K. Pathak, Adv.
VERSUS
.k UNI.N oF INDI"tfl?ff* rr. Himansh" u;:*lToLldent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
18.L L.20Lt CM No. 17091/2011 in W.P.(C) No. 6786/2011
By this application filed under Section 151 CPC, the r-, *<.. petitioner seeks rectification of the order dated 16.9.20Lt.
Counsel for the petitioner states that the father of the petitioner Shri Lal Man Yadav was alive on the date of passing of
. the said order and he is still alive but in the order it was wrongly mentioned that Shri Lal Man Yaav had expired.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
As would be manifest from perusal of the order dated o/o l.a.
16.9.20LL, the petitioner had claimed his occupation over the land forming part of graveyard situated at C-95/5, Aram Bagh, I Point, Punchquian Road, New Delhi, being son of Shri Lal Man Yadav who on that date of the passing of the order was said to. have expired.
The petitioner in the present case has also placed on record some electricity bills and other documents in the name of Shri Lal Man
Yadav and if Shri Lal Man Yadav was stiil alive on the said date then why the petition was not preferred by Shri Lal Man Yadav who could only have the locus standi to file the present petition. Since this court has already directed that any action of dispossession or sealing etc. shall be taken by the respondent only after following due process of law, therefore the said rectification will not cause any harm to the rights of the respondent.
The rectification as prayed is allowed.
The order dated I6.9.20tL is accordingly modified to the extent of deleting the said line whereby it was stated that Shri Lal
Man Yadav had already expired.
It is made clear to both the parties that rest of the order dated I6.9.20t1 will remain same and the respondent will be at full liberty to proceed either against the petitioner or his father sri Lal Man Yadav in accordance with law as already directed by this court vide order dated 16.9.201I . t
With the above directions, the present application stands disposed of. n
IA
'ay"z KATLASH CAnnnHIRJ NOVEMBER LB,?OLT mg r-{
;'b-.. \
18.L L.20Lt CM No. 17091/2011 in W.P.(C) No. 6786/2011
By this application filed under Section 151 CPC, the r-, *<.. petitioner seeks rectification of the order dated 16.9.20Lt.
Counsel for the petitioner states that the father of the petitioner Shri Lal Man Yadav was alive on the date of passing of
. the said order and he is still alive but in the order it was wrongly mentioned that Shri Lal Man Yaav had expired.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
As would be manifest from perusal of the order dated o/o l.a.
16.9.20LL, the petitioner had claimed his occupation over the land forming part of graveyard situated at C-95/5, Aram Bagh, I Point, Punchquian Road, New Delhi, being son of Shri Lal Man Yadav who on that date of the passing of the order was said to. have expired.
The petitioner in the present case has also placed on record some electricity bills and other documents in the name of Shri Lal Man
Yadav and if Shri Lal Man Yadav was stiil alive on the said date then why the petition was not preferred by Shri Lal Man Yadav who could only have the locus standi to file the present petition. Since this court has already directed that any action of dispossession or sealing etc. shall be taken by the respondent only after following due process of law, therefore the said rectification will not cause any harm to the rights of the respondent.
The rectification as prayed is allowed.
The order dated I6.9.20tL is accordingly modified to the extent of deleting the said line whereby it was stated that Shri Lal
Man Yadav had already expired.
It is made clear to both the parties that rest of the order dated I6.9.20t1 will remain same and the respondent will be at full liberty to proceed either against the petitioner or his father sri Lal Man Yadav in accordance with law as already directed by this court vide order dated 16.9.201I . t
With the above directions, the present application stands disposed of. n
IA
'ay"z KATLASH CAnnnHIRJ NOVEMBER LB,?OLT mg r-{
;'b-.. \
JUDGMENT