Sudip Kohli v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 24th July, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 13453/2019 whereby the learned Single Judge refused to grant police protection to the Appellant to construct boundary wall on the property bearing no. RZ-85, Dashrath Puri, New Delhi-110045 (“subject property”) on the ground that the Appellant is unable to show any document pertaining to the ownership of the subject property.

2. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant states that the heirs of Sh.Madan Lal Duggal, the erstwhile owner, in pursuance to the Will dated 20th December, 1995 executed a family settlement vesting rights in the subject property in favour of the Appellant.

3. This Court has put to learned senior counsel for the Appellant that even if it is presumed that the Appellant is the legal successor of Sh.Madan Lal Duggal, then also why should the writ court pass an order allowing the Appellant/Petitioner to construct a boundary wall under police protection, as the alleged demolition of the erstwhile boundary wall was carried out by identified private residents, namely, Smt. Sharda Devi, Sh.J.P. Gupta, Sh.Ankur Gupta, Sh.Bansal, owner of Balaji Departmental Store in collusion with Sh.Sudhir Sharma, President and Sh. Mool Chand Jain, General Secretary of Dashrath Puri Residents‟ Welfare Association („RWA‟).

4. In response, learned senior counsel for the Appellant relies on the judgment of another learned Single Judge in Raghubir Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11331.

5. Admittedly, no Government official or department was involved in preventing the Appellant from constructing the boundary wall.

6. During the course of hearing, it also transpires that the RWA has filed a suit being CS(SCJ) 756/2019, which is pending consideration before CJ-03, SW, Dwarka Court.

7. Hence, this Court is of the view that if any order allowing the appellant to reconstruct the boundary wall is passed in the present proceedings, it would make the suit filed by the RWA infructuous.

8. This Court is further of the view that the judgment in Raghubir Singh (supra) does not offer any assistance to the Appellant because in the said case, upon enquiry, it was found that the version of the complainant regarding stay in respect of the subject land was factually incorrect and that the inquiry report clearly recorded that the complaint filed was false.

9. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellant must either file a civil suit against the named residents who had demolished the boundary wall or file an application in the pending suit after impleading the Delhi Police and seek an order as sought for in the present appeal.

10. With the aforesaid liberty, present appeal along with the applications stands disposed of. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J AUGUST 27, 2024