Full Text
Translation output
\1-
•V
$-12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 11953/2016
CENTRAL MARKET SECTOR-6 DWARKA WELFARE ASSOCIATION Petitioner
Through Mr; Sanjeev Singh and Mr. Ayub Khan, Advocates
•V
$-12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 11953/2016
CENTRAL MARKET SECTOR-6 DWARKA WELFARE ASSOCIATION Petitioner
Through Mr; Sanjeev Singh and Mr. Ayub Khan, Advocates
VERSUS
UNION OF ESfDIA & ORS
Through Respondents Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for DDA.
Ms. Reema Khorana, Advocate for respondent no.3/SDMC.
Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Advocate for respondent no.4.
Through Respondents Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for DDA.
Ms. Reema Khorana, Advocate for respondent no.3/SDMC.
Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Advocate for respondent no.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLI^ MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
21.12.2016
21.12.2016
CM.APPL. 47095/2016(ExemDtion1
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C^ 11953/2016 Counsellor the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached this
Court in the year 2006 by filing a W.P.(C).No.3521/2006. Prayer made in the said writ petition and the present writ petition is almost identical. Learned counsel further submits that by an order dated 21.09.2006, the Single Judge of this Court had directed the respondent no.2 to indicate oh an affidavit the plan/ action for removal of encroachment from the public land. The writ petition was finally disposed o%by an order dated 14.02.2008 as the encroachments from
2016:DHC:9313-DB footpath and other land were removed and, in fact, FIRs had been registered against some of the encroachers. The authorities were fiirther directed to ensure that a periodical inspection of the area would continue to ensure that footpaths and other areas are not encroached upon.
After some hearing in the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law as the authorities have flouted the orders passed by the Court dated
21.09.2006 and 14.02.2008.
Thewritpetition is dismissed as withdrawn at this stage.
G.S.SISTANI, J VINOD GOEL, J DECEMBER 21, 2016 pst
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C^ 11953/2016 Counsellor the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached this
Court in the year 2006 by filing a W.P.(C).No.3521/2006. Prayer made in the said writ petition and the present writ petition is almost identical. Learned counsel further submits that by an order dated 21.09.2006, the Single Judge of this Court had directed the respondent no.2 to indicate oh an affidavit the plan/ action for removal of encroachment from the public land. The writ petition was finally disposed o%by an order dated 14.02.2008 as the encroachments from
2016:DHC:9313-DB footpath and other land were removed and, in fact, FIRs had been registered against some of the encroachers. The authorities were fiirther directed to ensure that a periodical inspection of the area would continue to ensure that footpaths and other areas are not encroached upon.
After some hearing in the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law as the authorities have flouted the orders passed by the Court dated
21.09.2006 and 14.02.2008.
Thewritpetition is dismissed as withdrawn at this stage.
G.S.SISTANI, J VINOD GOEL, J DECEMBER 21, 2016 pst
W.P.(CJ 11953/2016 2/2
2016:DHC:9313-DB
2016:DHC:9313-DB
JUDGMENT