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

2002 Supreme(Del) 1108

MANMOHAN SARIN
NINA SETH – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
PINKY ANAND, Sujata Kashyap

MANMOHAN SARIN

( 1 ) RULE. WITH the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming to be owner of 19 bighas and 14 biswas of land, where the farm house with boundary wall has been constructed by the petitioner. It is claimed that boundary was built along the main road and there was no encroachment of public land. It is claimed that boundary wall was built in the year 1983 and farm house was also constructed in 1984. Counsel for the petitioner states that respondent is seeking to demolish the boundary wall without any prior notice. Counsel for the petitioner states that boundary wall has been built on the land belonging to the petitioner and not on public land. An order directing status quo of the boundary wall was passed on 7. 3. 2000. Thereafter the matter continued awaiting completion of service and of pleadings. Respondents have filed counter affidavit, wherein it is claimed that petitioner had concealed that there was encroachment upon the land belonging to Gaon Sabha bearing Khasra no. 38/7/2. It is claimed that the site was inspected by the patwari, who found that the petitioner was constructing


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