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

2003 Supreme(Del) 382

High Court Of Delhi
DHARAMVIR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCTOF DELHI - Respondent
CIVIL WRIT PETITION 1369 of 2003
Decided On : 04/25/2003

Advocates Appeared:
AVINISH AHLAVAT, Jayant Bhushan, S.D.Kaushik, YASH ANAND

The court emphasized the need for resolving disputed factual issues in a civil suit rather than through a writ petition.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Right of Way - 22.9.1992 - 19.7.2001 - 23.7.2002 - 12.9.2002 - 10.10.2002 - 7.2.2003 - 11.3.1991 - 25 ft - 16-1/2 ft - 17 bighas 7 biswas - 26 bighas and 6 biswas - 280 children - 30 ft - 25 feet - 991/2003 - 226

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondent from construction/demolition activity over a land used as a right of way by the villagers. The land was allotted for a school, and the construction of a boundary wall blocked the villagers' access.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the land was allotted for a school, and no right of way was reflected in the official records. The construction of the boundary wall was complete, and granting an injunction would disturb the school's functioning.

Issues: Dispute over right of way, construction of boundary wall, and the impact on the school's functioning.

Ratio Decidendi: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the matter involved disputed questions of facts best resolved in a civil suit.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to file a civil suit.

A. K. SIKRI, J.

( 1 ) THE main prayer made in this writ petition is to the following effect:

" (I) Issue Rule Nisi against the respondent calling upon them as to why a writ of mandamus may not be issued against the respondent restraining them from any construction/demolition activity over the land bearing Khasra no. 82 without providing a Rasta to the petitioners and other co-villagers. "

( 2 ) AS is clear from the aforesaid prayer, the petitioners case in this writ petition is that they and other co-villagers had been using rasta from the land bearing Khasra No. 82 belonging to Gaon Sabha, which is the only way of access to their lands since long. Plot bearing Khasra No. 82 was declared a Johar land in the Consolidation proceedings held in the year 1954. Farmers of this village and other villagers are using this land for access to their agricultural land and to take their bullock cart, Tractor, trollies and other agricultural equipments. It is stated that in the year 1989, the respondent no. 5 i. e. Gaon sabha in order to protect its land in Khasra no. 82 started construction of boundary wall. The villagers raised objection to the construction of this boundary wall as they apprehended that in that event their ingress and egress to their agricultural lands would be stopped. They made complaint to the then SDM/ Revenue Assistant. Report of the patwari was called for and he submitted his report dated 17. 1. 1989 stating that land bearing Khasra No. 82 belonged to Gaon sabha and it was Johar land. This report was confirmed by Tehsildar who stated that as per the report of Patwari Halqua, the land was being used as Rasta by the villagers for last many years. Application dated 11. 3. 1991 was also filed before the SDM and on this application, SDM passed the following order:

"ae to ensure that a passage of about 25 ft. be allowed to the villagers for approaching their fields. "

( 3 ) THE petitioners claim that ever since the said land is used as Rasta. However, in the month of May/june,. 2002, the respondent no. 4, namely, Director, Directorate of education, constructed a boundary wall on the land bearing Khasra No. 82 resulting blockade of Rasta used by the villagers. It is further stated that the respondent no. 4 was now raising further construction/demolition activity over the said land and in these circumstances, present petition is filed with afore-mentioned prayer. It may be mentioned that the petitioners have also stated about the order passed by Civil Judge in the Suit no. 404/2002 which was filed by the respondents 7 to 11 i. e. other villagers and it is alleged that the said suit was filed without the knowledge of the petitioners and the- order passed therein is not binding on the petitioners. This aspect shall be dealt with at the appropriate stage in detail.

( 4 ) MR Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the aforesaid position wherein way back in the year 1991, 30 ft Rasta on the north side of the plot in question and 16-1/2 ft on the South side of the said plot was left to be used as Rasta for the villagers, the respondents could not construct boundary wall thereon and block the ingress and egress of the petitioners. It was submitted that there is no other Rasta apart from this. He also referred to the proceedings and orders of sdm, note of which has already been taken above.

( 5 ) BEFORE dealing with this contention, let us take some more stock appearing from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents.

( 6 ) THE land in question over Khasra No. 82 has been allotted to the respondent no. 4 for the construction of a School. Order dated 22. 9. 1992 was passed by the Additional district Magistrate-cum-Director Panchayats in this behalf whereby land measuring 17 bighas 7 biswas at Khasra No. 30/2 (4-1), 131/2 (4-8), 132 (4-16), 137/2 (4-2) of village ibrahimpur of gram sabha land measuring 26 bighas and 6 biswas out of the Khasra No. 82/ 26-6 of village Barwala for o














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top