Attar Singh & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The four petitioners claim to be the owners of land (though the area of land is not given in the petition but in the site plan Annexure-P[1] dimensions of the land have been given) in Khasra No.148 stated to be within the Lal Dora of the village Kanganheri, Delhi. They state that their predecessors have been in possession of the said land since the year 1948 and had constructed a Dharamshala over the said land. It is further the case of the petitioners that there is a Chopal of the Gaon Sabha, adjacent to their said land. The petitioners claiming that the respondents in August, 2009 carried out demolition of a portion of the Dharamshala of the petitioners and 2011:DHC:259 petition for directions to the respondent to remove the encroachment from the land of the petitioners and to restrain them from interfering in use and occupation of the remaining property of the petitioners.

2. Notice of the petition was issued and status quo regarding occupation, possession and construction directed to be maintained.

3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which the respondent has denied the title or claim of the petitioners to the land and has stated that the Chopal was constructed much prior to the coming into force of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and was in the year 2009 merely reconstructed. It is pleaded that it is the Gaon Sabha who is the owner in possession of the land and it is the petitioners who are the encroachers over the land of the Chopal or have been attempting to encroach over the land of the Chopal.

4. Needless to state that the petitioners have filed a rejoinder controverting the contents of the counter affidavit and reiterating their claim.

5. In view of the contest by the respondent, it has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to how the present writ petition is maintainable; how the factual controversy of title and possession of the land can be resolved with evidence and as to why the petitioners ought not to avail of the alternative remedy under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act or the Delhi Land Revenue Act.

6. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that the said land is a private land within the meaning of Section 8 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and no avenue for adjudication of disputes with respect thereto is provided within the meaning of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

7. Even if that be so, the fact remains that the remedy of the petitioners would then be before the Civil Court where the question of title of the land can be adjudicated.

8. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondent has generally disputed the title of the land but has not denied that the petitioners are in possession since 1948. That is not strictly borne out from the counter affidavit. The respondent has disputed that the petitioners were in possession of the land with respect to which the relief has been claimed and has further pleaded that it is the petitioners who are attempting to encroach upon the land of the Chopal. Even otherwise, the question as to who has been in possession and since when, cannot be adjudicated in this proceeding.

9. The counsel for the petitioners at this stage has stated that the petitioners would be satisfied if it is merely directed that the respondents shall not interfere with the remaining property of the petitioners.

10. I am afraid, even the said relief without granting any declaration of title or rights in favour of the petitioners with respect to the land of which

11. The counsel for the petitioners has referred to photographs filed along with the rejoinder to show that the construction is old and the foundation stone of more than sixty years back exists. No definite finding on the basis of the said photographs without examining and cross examining of witnesses can be given.