Full Text
WP(C) 10574/2017 &CM No.43291/2017(for stay)
MADANLAL , f
Through: Mr. Sanjay Baniwal for Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Ms. Komal and Ms. Kajri Gupta, Advs.
^ BALJIT Petitioner
AND
MAHENDER SINGH Petitioner
SOHAN PAL Petitioner
2018:DHC:9123 L- w
ORDER o/o 09.08.2018 L The counsel for the petitioners states that though these petitions also were being listed along with W.P.(C) No.7765/2016 and petitions connected therewith and W.P.(C) No.8741//2016 and petitions connected therewith, which have been successively taken immediately prior tothese petitions and in which orders of dismissal of those petitions as withdrawn have been passed granting time till December, 2019 to vacate the premises subject to filing affidavit ofundertaking, but the petitioners in these four petitions do not want to withdraw these petitions and do not want to avail ofthe time to vacate the premises as has been granted to the aforesaid two sets of petitioners and want the petitions to be heard.
JUDGMENT
2. The counsel for the petitioners and the senior counsel for the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) have been heard.
3. These petitions were being listed along with a large number ofother petitions which were taken up in two sets aforesaid immediately before taking up these petitions for hearing and have been withdrawn today in view of the dismissal in limine by the Supreme Court on 20'^ March, 2018 of SLP(C) Diary No(S).5253/2018 titled Shiv Shankar Ors. Vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority &Anr., and alarge number ofother SLPs preferred against the judgment dated 31^' January, 2018 ofthe Division Bench ofthis W.P.(C) 10574/2017, W.P.(C) 10582/2017, W.P.(C) 10588/2017& W.P.(C) 9222/2017 page2of[4] k- Court inSunilKumar &Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority 2018 SCC OnLine 6929 dismissing the appeals.
4. These petitions having been entertained and interim orders therein having been granted, on the claim of the petitioners herein being identically placed as those of others, ordinarily, once petitions of others have been withdrawn, the question ofgranting any reliefto petitioners would not arise.
5. The only argument of the counsel for the petitioners is that neither the Estate Officer of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) nor the District Judge acting as the Appellate Officer, have in the impugned orders disclosed the title ofDDA tothe land inpossession ofeach ofthe petitioners or as-to how the same is public premises.
6. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioners, the title ofthe petitioners to the premises in their respective occupation.
7. The counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have no title and have only been tilling the said land for long. It is further stated that the petitioners also were the members, either of Jheel Khuranja Cooperative Milk Producers Society Limited or of Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multipurpose Society Limited, as were the petitioners in the aforesaid two sets ofpetitions which have been withdrawn today.
8. On enquiry, it is informed that the premises of each ofthe petitioners, as ofthe other petitioners whose petitions have been withdrawn, are situated in Yamuna Riverbed and/or YamunaFloodplain.
9. Considering the nature of the land from which the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted, in my view, the factum ofthe same being public premises is res ipsa loquitur especially when the petitioners do not claim W.P.(C) 10574/2017, W.P.(C) 10582/2017, W.P.(C) 10588/2017& W.P.(C) 9222/2017 page3of[4] r any title thereto and have not disclosed any other person who may be having title thereto or on whose behalf or under whose peraiission, the petitioners are occupying the same. Moreover, the rights of others admittedly similarly situated as the petitioners and who were before the Estate Officer and before the District Judge agitating their rights along with the petitioners, have already been negatived and the challenge to which orders have attained finality till the Supreme Court. The petitioners cannot, for the first time, while invoking the discretionaiy jurisdiction ofthis Court, raise such a plea.
10. The senior counsel for the DDA states that the two Societies aforesaid were granted lease ofthe subject land and which lease expired by efflux of time-in the year 1967. It is stated that finding so, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals.
11. The counsel for the petitioners has already admitted that these petitioners were members ofeither ofthe two societies aforesaid. The order of eviction against the other members of the said societies have attained finality till the Supreme Court and there is thus no need to write a detailed judgment on the pleas ofthe petitioners.
12. No other argument has been urged.
13. There is no merit in these petitions.
14. Dismissed. No costs. Dasti under signatures of Court Master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 09, 2018 'pp/bs'.. W.P.(C) 10574/2017, W.P.(C) 10582/2017, W.k(C) 10588/2017& W.P.(C) 9222/2017 puge4of[4] fr^t- Cfn'2&6')M/ij/feU'l