Full Text
Translation output
s 9 to 11 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 1403/2016 & CM APPL. 6163/2016
SURJIT SINGH & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. P.S. Goindi, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 1403/2016 & CM APPL. 6163/2016
SURJIT SINGH & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. P.S. Goindi, Advocate.
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent
Through: Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.
WITH
W.P.(C) 2110/2016 & CM APPL. 9085/2016
KUNALGOEL Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocate with Ms. Supreet Bimbra, Advocate.
KUNALGOEL Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocate with Ms. Supreet Bimbra, Advocate.
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate with
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.
AND
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate with
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.
AND
W.P.(C) 2445/2016 & CM APPL. 10474/2016
RAKESH JUNEJA & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. P.S. Goindi, Advocate.
RAKESH JUNEJA & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. P.S. Goindi, Advocate.
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate 2016:DHC:8935
''k
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate 2016:DHC:8935
''k
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
16.08.2016 Learned counsel for petitioners state that they have already paid the proportionate ground rent to the DDA/Maintenance Agency.
However, as in the present proceedings, the petitioners have primarily challenged the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, which are appealable orders under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, this Court disposes of the present writ petitions bydirecting the petitioners to avail thealternative effective remedy by filing the appeals within two weeks.
To facilitate the filing of the appeals, it is clarified that the time spent in prosecuting thepresent writ petitions would be excluded while determining the period of limitation for the new appeals.
It is clarified that during the pendency of the appeal proceedings, petitioners shall not be evicted. Further, if the District Judge dismisses the appeals filed by the petitioners, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners for a period offour weeks.
This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. Rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
Order dasti.
MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 16,2016 js 2016:DHC:8935
16.08.2016 Learned counsel for petitioners state that they have already paid the proportionate ground rent to the DDA/Maintenance Agency.
However, as in the present proceedings, the petitioners have primarily challenged the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, which are appealable orders under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, this Court disposes of the present writ petitions bydirecting the petitioners to avail thealternative effective remedy by filing the appeals within two weeks.
To facilitate the filing of the appeals, it is clarified that the time spent in prosecuting thepresent writ petitions would be excluded while determining the period of limitation for the new appeals.
It is clarified that during the pendency of the appeal proceedings, petitioners shall not be evicted. Further, if the District Judge dismisses the appeals filed by the petitioners, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners for a period offour weeks.
This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. Rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
Order dasti.
MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 16,2016 js 2016:DHC:8935
JUDGMENT