SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 281

ANIL R.DAVE, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Brij Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent


ORDER

Anil R. Dave, J. —

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under the provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the respondents be directed not to demolish Shop No. D/4, Peeragarhi Relief Camp, New Delhi-56 till another shop is given to him in lieu of the shop referred to hereinabove.

2. Though the petitioner has voiced the aforestated apprehension that the respondents might demolish the shop in question which is in his occupation, there is no justifiable reason stated in the petition on the basis of which the petitioner believes that his shop would be demolished by the respondent-authorities.

3. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, the learned advocates appearing for the respondents submitted that at present there is no proposal for demolition of the shop in question and they further assured this Court that, except in accordance with the law, neither the petitioner would be evicted from the shop in question nor the shop in question would be demolished.

4. In view of the aforestated assurance given on behalf of the respondent-authorities, in our opinion, the grievance voiced by the petitioner in the petition would not survive, and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top