Ravinder Kumar v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

1. The present is an application under Section 151 CPC for exemption from filing complete record, original, certified, true typed and legible copy of the annexures.

2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Application is disposed of accordingly. W.P.(C) 2303/2023

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of respondent, since the respondent has refused to demarcate the land of petitioner i.e. land which is part of Khasra No. 269, 270 & 271 situated in Revenue Estate of Village Bhalswa Jahangirpuri, Delhi. It is submitted that the respondent has rejected the application of petitioner for demarcation vide its order dated 24.01.2023, against which the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner along with his brothers is co-owner of land falling in Khasra No. 269 (6-17), 270 (2-1) and 271 (4-14), total measuring 13 Bigha 12 Biswas falling in Revenue Estate of Village Bhalswa, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. It is submitted that the said land is duly recorded in the name of petitioner and his brothers in the Revenue records.

5. It is submitted that on one side of the land of petitioner, drain exists and on the other side land of some other individual exists. The said individual wanted to raise boundary wall for protection of his land. Petitioner objected to the construction of boundary wall, as status of exact boundaries of the land of petitioner and adjacent lands of other land holders is not clear. Thus, it is submitted that petitioner has apprehension that the land of petitioner might become deficient and short physically on spot if the colonizer is allowed to develop the adjacent land as per his plan and claim.

6. It is further the case of the petitioner that in order to remove any controversy, petitioner made a request for demarcation of his land before respondent. However, despite several visits, the respondent refused to demarcate the land of the petitioner and subsequently, by the impugned order dated 24.01.2023, the request of the petitioner for demarcation has been rejected.

7. Issue notice.

8. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel, on instructions, submits that since the area in question is built up area, any demarcation exercise to be carried out by the respondent would have to be done with the Total Station Method (TSM) with machine. Thus, she submits that since demarcation process through TSM involves lot of costs, the cost for the demarcation through TSM method ought to be borne by the petitioner. She further submits that if the petitioner is ready to bear the costs of demarcation through TSM method, then the respondent has no objection to carry out the demarcation.

9. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is ready to bear the costs of demarcation through TSM method.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed with direction to the respondent to carry out the demarcation to the land of the petitioner, details of which are given herein above through TSM method. It is further directed that the costs of demarcation shall be borne by the petitioner.

11. It is directed that the demarcation process be carried out by the respondent expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today.

12. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J FEBRUARY 23, 2023