Acceptance of jurisdiction by the petitioner over his property renders the challenge against authorities moot, allowing for submission of building plans while holding demolition notices in abeyance until a decision is made.

ORDER :

1. This litigation has a long and checkered history. This court has been moved in two proceedings; a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and a Special Leave Petition arising out of the judgment and order dated 24 February 2020 of the High Court of Delhi.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his residential property has been sealed and demolition notices have been issued by the Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB). DCB supports its action on the ground that the petitioner has constructed without submitting building plans for sanction and continued to do so despite its directions to cease and desist from constructing in an unauthorized manner. In assailing the action initiated against him, the petitioner sought to question whether the property falls within DCB’s jurisdiction. A suit, being Civil Suit No 759 of 2018, has been filed by a neighbour of the petitioner in the Patiala House Courts, to which the DCB and the petitioner are parties, to seek an injunction against the petitioner. In proceedings arising out of the suit, on 9 May 2019, the High Court passed an order with the consent of the parties and direct that a specific issue be framed in relation to the jurisdiction of DCB over the land bearing Khasra 960 claimed by the petitioner. The order of the Delhi High Court was challenged before this Court by the petitioner in SLP(C) No 19892/2019. The SLP was dismissed on 26 August 2019. In compliance with the order of the High Court, the trial court has framed an issue in relation to the jurisdiction of DCB, on 17 February 2020. The issue of the jurisdiction of DCB is thus pending determination in the civil suit since the petitioner had thus far sought to contest it.

3. Apart from the above proceedings, the petitioner had also instituted a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Delhi (WPC No 1318/2018) contending that the acquisition proceedings in relation to khasra No 960, which is claimed by him, have lapsed. By an order dated 20 August 2019, the High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition, but granted him the liberty to file fresh proceedings with an explanation for the delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings. No further proceedings have been instituted.

4. Contesting the claim of the petitioner, the Union of India represented by the Additional Solicitor General, Mr Jayant Sud and Ms Nidhi Mohan Parashar, counsel for DCB, have urged that in relation to the acquisition proceedings, an award was passed on 9 February 1976, and compensation of Rs 3.50 lakhs has already been paid. The acquisition proceedings do not form the subject matter of the present proceedings. Hence, we are not adjudicating upon the merits of any of the issues in relation thereto in those proceedings.

5. The petition under Article 32 was instituted by the petitioner seeking to challenge a public notice dated 15 February 2020 and place in contest the authority of DCB to initiate any action over the suit property. The Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution has arisen from a judgment and order of the High Court dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal against the rejection of the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The Single Judge observed that the challenge in the writ petition in regard to the authority and jurisdiction of DCB has been dealt with in the earlier order of the High Court, which was affirmed by this Court; and in terms of the order, DCB’s jurisdiction is to be decided in the pending suit where the petitioner has placed it in issue. This order was confirmed by the Division Bench. However, a notice of contempt has been