Full Text
Translation output
$-13,14& 18 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)12196/2016& CM APPL.48113/2016
BIMLESH
Petitioner
Through: Mr UpendraPratap,Adv.
W.P.(C)12196/2016& CM APPL.48113/2016
BIMLESH
Petitioner
Through: Mr UpendraPratap,Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr Madhusudan Bhayana, Advs. for R1 to R4.
Through: Mr Madhusudan Bhayana, Advs. for R1 to R4.
W.P.(C)327/2017&CM APPL.1540/2017
RAN SINGH AND ORS
Through: Mr UpendraPratap,Adv.
RAN SINGH AND ORS
Through: Mr UpendraPratap,Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS
Through: Ms Warisha Farasat, Ms Rudrakshi Deo,Ms Hafsa Khan,Advs.
4/^ W.P.(C)11500/2017&CM APPL.46923/2017 ISHWAR SINGH AND ANR
Through: Mr Som DuttKaushik,Adv.
Through: Ms Warisha Farasat, Ms Rudrakshi Deo,Ms Hafsa Khan,Advs.
4/^ W.P.(C)11500/2017&CM APPL.46923/2017 ISHWAR SINGH AND ANR
Through: Mr Som DuttKaushik,Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT.OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Through: Mr.Anand Vikrant,Adv.
Through: Mr.Anand Vikrant,Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER o/o 26.08.2019 The learned counsels for the respondents draw my attention to the order dated 23.04.2014 passed bythis Courtin a batch ofpetitions including
ORDER o/o 26.08.2019 The learned counsels for the respondents draw my attention to the order dated 23.04.2014 passed bythis Courtin a batch ofpetitions including
W.P.(C)1143/2013 titled Mahinder Singh V5. Govt ofNCT ofDelhi &
2019:DHC:7930 Ors. They submit that a similar plea raised by the petitioner therein was rejected by this Court by holding as under:-
2019:DHC:7930 Ors. They submit that a similar plea raised by the petitioner therein was rejected by this Court by holding as under:-
"12. The Court has examined the averments made in the writ petitions and the affidavits filed by the respondents and after hearing the arguments advanced by the counsels for the parties, is of the opinion that disputed questions offacts have been raised in the present petitions, which include the very existence ofthe Patta certificates relied upon by the petitioners for claiming a right on plots ofland, the existence ofstructures allegedly built by them on the subject land prior to the demolition action that took place as long back as in the year 2004 and the exact location of the plots allegedly allotted to
^ the petitioners under the Patta certificatesfiled by them. The said issues cannot be determined in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, as evidence shall have to be led by the petitioners for the court to determine their rights, ifany, on the subjectland."
I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsels for the respondents. The plea whether the petitioners have any right,title or interest in the plot ofland cannot be determined in the present proceedings which are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This would have to be determined in a proper proceedings to be taken up by the petitioner in accordance with law.
In view of the above, the present petitions are dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy as may be available in law. The interim protection granted to the petitioners shall continue for a further period ofeight weeksfrom today.
NAVIN CHAWLA,J AUGUST 26,2019/rv 2019:DHC:7930
I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsels for the respondents. The plea whether the petitioners have any right,title or interest in the plot ofland cannot be determined in the present proceedings which are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This would have to be determined in a proper proceedings to be taken up by the petitioner in accordance with law.
In view of the above, the present petitions are dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy as may be available in law. The interim protection granted to the petitioners shall continue for a further period ofeight weeksfrom today.
NAVIN CHAWLA,J AUGUST 26,2019/rv 2019:DHC:7930
JUDGMENT