Full Text
Translation output
$-36, 37, 45, 46,'47 &49 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
. C0NT.CA3(G) 78/2018 •
. C0NT.CA3(G) 78/2018 •
CONT.CAS(C) 79/2018
CONT.CAS(C) 81/2018 • " -
" ,CONT.CAS(C) 8^/2018 , CONT.CAS(C) 83/2018 , CONT.GAS(C) 86/2018 -
: LEELAWATI(DEAD)THRLR ' BHOOP SINGH&ANR KAMLADEVI
, RAJENDER HARI SINGH / SHIVSHANKAR&ANR .....Petitioners
Through:: Mr. R.M. Sinha, Mr. Sandeep Khatri, V - ; Ms. Prabhleen Kaur and Mr. Prateek - • ' Sinha, Advs.
" ,CONT.CAS(C) 8^/2018 , CONT.CAS(C) 83/2018 , CONT.GAS(C) 86/2018 -
: LEELAWATI(DEAD)THRLR ' BHOOP SINGH&ANR KAMLADEVI
, RAJENDER HARI SINGH / SHIVSHANKAR&ANR .....Petitioners
Through:: Mr. R.M. Sinha, Mr. Sandeep Khatri, V - ; Ms. Prabhleen Kaur and Mr. Prateek - • ' Sinha, Advs.
VERSUS
UDAY PRATAP SINGH VICE CHAIRMAN D.D.A. (DELHI
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) & ANR UDAYPARTAP-SINGH &ORS . Respondents
Through:: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Sr. Adv. with ; , Mr..Arjun Pant, Adv.for DDA.
' , , • ' Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey and
• . • Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs, for R2
' . . in C6nt. Cas.(GJ 83/2018 , '
• . CORAM:, ' . ; .- - ' •
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
ORDER ... 06.02.2018 CM No. 4487/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CAS (C) 78/2018
CM No. 4494/20i8 (for exemption) in CONT. CAS (C)79/2018
CM No. 4568/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CAS (C) 81/2018
CM No. 4570/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CAS(C) 82/2018
CM No. 4572/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CAS (C) 83/2018
2018:DHC:9345 CM No. 4645/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CASfQ 86/2018
Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) & ANR UDAYPARTAP-SINGH &ORS . Respondents
Through:: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Sr. Adv. with ; , Mr..Arjun Pant, Adv.for DDA.
' , , • ' Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey and
• . • Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs, for R2
' . . in C6nt. Cas.(GJ 83/2018 , '
• . CORAM:, ' . ; .- - ' •
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
ORDER ... 06.02.2018 CM No. 4487/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CAS (C) 78/2018
CM No. 4494/20i8 (for exemption) in CONT. CAS (C)79/2018
CM No. 4568/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CAS (C) 81/2018
CM No. 4570/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CAS(C) 82/2018
CM No. 4572/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CAS (C) 83/2018
2018:DHC:9345 CM No. 4645/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CASfQ 86/2018
Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 78/2018 & CM No. 4488/2018 (for stay)
CONT.CAS(C) 79/2018 & CM No. 4495/2018 (for stay)
CONT.CAS(C) 81/2018 & CM No. 4569/2018 (for stay)
CONT.CAS(C) 82/2018 & CM No. 4571/2018 (for stay)
CONT.CAS(C) 83/2018 & CM No. 4573/2018 (for stay)
CONT.CAS(C) 86/2018
These petitions have been filed by the petitioners alleging, despite the petitioners being in possession, an incorrect statement has been made on
January 19, 2018 that the entire land at the western side ofthe Yamuna Bank has since been made encroachment firep and the same is vacant except in those cases where there are status quo orders operating against the respondents/DDA.
Mr. R. M. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn my attention to page 29 of the paper book which is a photograph (in
Cont. Cas. No. 78/2018) to shdw the possession of the petitioners with
W regard tothe land in question.
He also, by relying on a
These petitions have been filed by the petitioners alleging, despite the petitioners being in possession, an incorrect statement has been made on
January 19, 2018 that the entire land at the western side ofthe Yamuna Bank has since been made encroachment firep and the same is vacant except in those cases where there are status quo orders operating against the respondents/DDA.
Mr. R. M. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn my attention to page 29 of the paper book which is a photograph (in
Cont. Cas. No. 78/2018) to shdw the possession of the petitioners with
W regard tothe land in question.
He also, by relying on a
JUDGMENT
of the Supreme Court contended that a wrong statement made would attract contempt proceedings.
On a specific query to Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents / DDA, Mr. Bansal states, he still stand by the statement made on January 19, 2018. That apart it is his submission that, mere photographs cannot conclusively prove the possession of the petitioners with regard to the land in question.
On a specific query to Mr.Sinha to show that the petitioners were / are holding the land inquestion on January 19, 2018 orthereafter, the answer is in the negative.
In view of above, I do not see any meritin the petitions. Thepetitions and the connected applications are dismissed. y. KAMESWAR RAO, J
FEBRUARY 06,20l8^g
On a specific query to Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents / DDA, Mr. Bansal states, he still stand by the statement made on January 19, 2018. That apart it is his submission that, mere photographs cannot conclusively prove the possession of the petitioners with regard to the land in question.
On a specific query to Mr.Sinha to show that the petitioners were / are holding the land inquestion on January 19, 2018 orthereafter, the answer is in the negative.
In view of above, I do not see any meritin the petitions. Thepetitions and the connected applications are dismissed. y. KAMESWAR RAO, J
FEBRUARY 06,20l8^g