Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 14446/2006
SURENDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Amit Tyagi, Adv.
W.P.(C) 14446/2006
SURENDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Amit Tyagi, Adv.
VERSUS
COMPETENT AUTHORTY (DELHI LAND .... Respondent
Through Mr. Som Dutt Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, Adv. for the respondent Nos. 3 to 9.
Through Mr. Som Dutt Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, Adv. for the respondent Nos. 3 to 9.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 17.03.2010
Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not want to implead the legal heirs of the respondent No.8 as parties to the present writ petition and the respondent No.8 can be deleted from the array of parties. The respondent No.8 is deleted from the array of parties.
The writ petition is vague and is bereft of material details and particulars.
Allegations have been made that the community land as demarcated in the partition scheme has not been properly re-partitioned and possession has not been given. The respondent authorities in the counter affidavit have controverted and denied the said allegations. In the counter affidavit it is stated that after consolidation, Gaon Sabha land in the revenue estate of Raghavpur aggregated to
321 bigha and 3 biswa is allotted in the manner indicated in the said paragraph. It is further stated that the said allocations were duly published and objections were
2010:DHC:1576 invited, but no objection was filed within the statutory limit.
Even otherwise in case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the consolidation scheme, he should approach the Financial Commissioner under
Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of
Fragmentation) Act, 1948. In case there is any encroachment etc. after the consolidation scheme has been implemented and re-partition has taken place, then the petitioner has remedy under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observations of merits and condoned any default or encroachment. The respondent authorities are duty bound to take action in accordance with law in case there is any encroachment on Gaon Sabha land.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 17, 2010 NA/P 2010:DHC:1576
Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not want to implead the legal heirs of the respondent No.8 as parties to the present writ petition and the respondent No.8 can be deleted from the array of parties. The respondent No.8 is deleted from the array of parties.
The writ petition is vague and is bereft of material details and particulars.
Allegations have been made that the community land as demarcated in the partition scheme has not been properly re-partitioned and possession has not been given. The respondent authorities in the counter affidavit have controverted and denied the said allegations. In the counter affidavit it is stated that after consolidation, Gaon Sabha land in the revenue estate of Raghavpur aggregated to
321 bigha and 3 biswa is allotted in the manner indicated in the said paragraph. It is further stated that the said allocations were duly published and objections were
2010:DHC:1576 invited, but no objection was filed within the statutory limit.
Even otherwise in case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the consolidation scheme, he should approach the Financial Commissioner under
Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of
Fragmentation) Act, 1948. In case there is any encroachment etc. after the consolidation scheme has been implemented and re-partition has taken place, then the petitioner has remedy under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observations of merits and condoned any default or encroachment. The respondent authorities are duty bound to take action in accordance with law in case there is any encroachment on Gaon Sabha land.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 17, 2010 NA/P 2010:DHC:1576
JUDGMENT