Phool Kanwar v. Government of NCT of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 29 Aug 2018 · 2018:DHC:5515
Sunil Gaur
W.P.(C) 9085/2018
2018:DHC:5515
property other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed the authority to decide the petitioner's pending application to set aside a 1980 ex parte ejectment order within twelve weeks, considering the delay and merits.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 9085/2018
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: August 29, 2018
W.P.(C) 9085/2018 & C.M. 34973/2018
PHOOL KANWAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Kumar Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .. Respondents
Through: Mr. Devesh Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel (Civil) with Ms. Sukriti Ghai, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
(ORAL)
ORDER

1. Ejectment order was passed against petitioner in proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 on 25th July, 1980. Petitioner’s counsel submits that the said order has not been implemented against petitioner and petitioner is still in possession of the subject land. It is also submitted that no construction has been raised on the subject land, which is agricultural land.

2. It is the case of petitioner that on 29th August, 2017, petitioner came to know about vesting of subject land in gaon sabha and soon thereafter, an application was filed for setting aside of the ex parte orders passed way back in the year 1980 and alongwith the said application, an application for condonation of delay has been filed in September, 2017. 2018:DHC:5515 W.P.(C) 9085/2018 Counsel for petitioner submits that application for setting aside ex parte orders is still pending and no date of hearing has been given in the said application.

3. If it is so, then second respondent shall ensure that petitioner’s application purportedly filed on 27th September, 2017, is decided within a period of twelve weeks and its fate be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be. Needless to say, delay aspect shall be considered by the authority concerned while deciding the said application.

4. With aforesaid observations, this petition and application are disposed of. A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel representing both the sides.

JUDGE AUGUST 29, 2018 r