T N Chopra & Anr v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors

Delhi High Court · 10 Sep 2024 · 2024:DHC:6998
Dharmesh Sharma
W.P.(C) 2479/2014
2024:DHC:6998
property other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed respondents accused of encroaching public park land to submit title documents to enable demarcation, warning of adverse consequences for non-compliance.

Full Text
Translation output
WP (C) 2479/2014
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th September, 2024
W.P.(C) 2479/2014 & CM APPL. 47881/2016, CM APPL.
34096/2017, CM APPL. 51750/2018, CM APPL. 34150/2019, CM APPL. 52882/2024
T N CHOPRA & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Atul Nigam & Ms. Tanvi Nigam, Advs.
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Dhawan, SC for DDA
WITH
Ms. Nishan Dhawan, Mr. V.K. Teng & Ms. Shivani Taneja, Advs. for DDA
Ms. Jagrati Singh, SC for MCD Ms. Asha Jain Madan & Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advs. for R3 &
R4.
Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv. for R5.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Sunny, Mr. Keshav Mann & Ms. Nandini Harit, Advs. for R5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 13353/2019
JUDGMENT

1. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.1/DDA[1] besides learned Delhi Development Authority counsel for the respondent No.3, who is also representing LRs of deceased respondent No.4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5/PNB Staff Cooperative Housing Building Society (hereinafter referred as the ‘respondent No.5-Society’) and on perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to decide the present application.

2. None appeared for the respondent No.2/East Delhi Municipal Corporation.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition, aggrieved by the alleged encroachment on public land/park, allegedly made by the respondents No. 3 and 4 i.e., wife and husband, respectively, which public land is part of a developed colony known as the ‘Bank Enclave’.

4. Needless to point out that respondents No. 3 and 4 have denied such allegations.

5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the layout plan handed over by the respondent No.5-Society, the area of the public park is about 330 sq. yards, and respondents No. 3 and 4, who are wife and husband, respectively, have diagonally encroached upon about 200 sq. yards of land, taking advantage of their house situated at the periphery of the adjacent unauthorized colony.

6. Insofar as the respondent No.1/DDA is concerned, it attempts to wash its hands off the matter stating that, the area in question had been handed over by the DDA to the erstwhile East Delhi Municipal Corporation vide notification dated 31.05.1989 and the same was placed at the disposal of the respondent No.5-Society.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also attempted to skirt the issue by stating that the DDA has not specified the exact land use of the public land in question.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that consequent to information sought by the petitioners under the RTI[2], the respondent No.1 vide its reply dated 17th /18th March, 2015 has inter alia revealed the following information: (a) The Area of plot under reference is 0.064 acres with a longer side of the rectangular plot being 75 feet; (b)The land use of the Bank Enclave is residential as per Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 and Zonal Development Plan of Zone ‘E’, However, the plot under reference is earmarked as park in the layout plan of Punjab National Banks Staff CHBS Limited on plot No.6 as per available record of Area Planning Zone.

9. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioners in the present case seek directions for demarcation/survey by TSM[3] for identifying it as a part of total land of 148 bighas 6 biswas transferred to respondent No.5-Society. The only bottleneck is that in the absence of respondents No. 3 and 4 furnishing relevant documents by virtue of which they came to occupy their property, it would not be possible for the officials of the DDA and/or for the matter an expert Patwari to carry out demarcation process.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, who is also representing LRs of deceased respondent No.4, submitted that they are Right to Information Act, 2005 Total Station Method willing to part with the copies of the relevant documents/title deeds with respect to their properties in question.

11. For now, the respondent No.3 as also the LRs of deceased respondent No.4, are directed to place on the record complete and legible copies of the title deeds/sale documents along with their affidavits, so as to substantiate about its being true and correct copies, with respect to the property under their occupation forming House No.1, Kisan Kunj Extension, Part-1, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 and place the same on the record of this Court within 15 days from today, failing, which not only an adverse inference may be taken against them during the course of these proceedings besides inviting other penal actions in accordance with the law.

12. Re-notify for compliance of the aforesaid order and further hearing on 10.12.2024 at the ‘Top of the Board’ in the advance list.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. SEPTEMBER 10, 2024