Mohd. Shabbir v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

1. Whether the 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 in the „Digest‟? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present writ-petition praying for the following reliefs:- “a) Directing the respondents not to interfere in erection of temporary shed, for performance of Namaz-ai-Janaza in the Kabristan/graveyard existing in Khasra No.289-290, Village Mandoli, Delhi; b) directing the respondents to implement the report dated April 05, 2005 (Annexure P-3 herein). 2010:DHC:6091 Prior to the present writ-petition, the petitioner had filed writ-petition bearing WP(Crl.) No.1384/2003 against the Government of NCT of Delhi; Station House Officer, Police Station Nand Nagari and Chowki Incharge, Harsh Vihar, P.S. Nand Nagari, praying for the following two reliefs:- “(i) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the respondent No.1 to conduct an enquiry against the respondents Nos.[2] and 3 with regard to the complaints vide Annexure-D (Colly) and take legal action in accordance with law, regarding the Wakf Religious property.

(ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents not to harass, misbehave the muslim residents of Village Mandoli and not to interfere in the day to day affairs regarding graveyard/Cheda Kabristan Aahle – Islam Wakf situated at Khasara No.289, 290 (56 Bighas 16 biswas) Village Mandoli, P.S. Nand Nagri, Delhi.” On the aforesaid writ-petition, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated January 19, 2005 and thereby directed Secretary (Revenue) to call for a meeting of responsible officers of the Delhi Development Authority, Land Acquisition Collector and Delhi Wakf Board to sort out the problem which was arising in the matter with a further direction to file a detailed report within a period of eight weeks. Pursuant to the order so passed, report dated April 05, 2005 was submitted to the Division Bench and the Division Bench by order dated April 13, 2005 disposed of the writ-petition in terms of the report. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the reliefs claimed in the present writ-petition has relied upon paragraph-10 of the report dated April 05, 2005. The same runs as under:- “10. In the meeting held on 1.4.2005, it was unanimously decided that as the major portion of the land of these khasras are under encroachment by way of temples, shouchalays etc., DDA cannot utilize this land for implementing its plan. Hence, it was decided that the area available in both these khasras may be allotted by DDA on its terms and conditions to Graveyard, Park and School. The area measuring 20,822.23 Sq. Mtr. May be allotted to Wakf Board for graveyard marked „A‟ in the site plan, the area measuring 3393.02 Sq. Mtr. to Park/Green area marked „B‟ in the site plan and the area measuring 7590.66 Sq. Mtr. to Govt. Sr. Sec. School Marked „C‟ in the site plan.” It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of paragraph-10 of the report, the area measuring 20,822.23 square meters was to be allotted to the Wakf Board for graveyard and that despite this Court having disposed of the writ-petition on the basis of what was contained in paragraph-10 of the report, the same has not been implemented. Hence, as noticed above, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to implement the report and in the meanwhile, further prays that he be allowed to erect a temporary shed for performance of Namaz-ai-Janaza in the Kabristan/graveyard existing in Khasra No.289-290, Village Mandoli. The learned counsel for respondent No.1-DDA who is present on advance notice submits that the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ-petition. As per him, the area measuring 20,822.23 square meters referred to in the report has to be allotted to the Wakf Board and if at all anybody has any claim regarding the said area or any right flowing therefrom, it is the Wakf Board. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I am inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1-DDA that in view of paragraph-10 of the report, if at all anybody has any right to approach the Court, be it on account of non-implementation of the report or for the purpose of erecting a temporary shed with regard to the land measuring 20,822.23 square meters, it is the Wakf Board. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ-petition. The same is dismissed. Dasti.

REKHA SHARMA, J. DECEMBER 15, 2010 ka