( 1 ) TWO writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner who is residing in Madhu Vihar, I. P. Extension, Mandawali Fazalpur, Shahadara,delhi. The colony in question is unauthorised colony. Petitioner in CM No. 4873/1999 is occupying the property bearing no. A-141 and A-142 measuring 150 square yards falling in khasra No. 1379/89 while in CW No. 6424/1998 he is occupying the property No. C-4 measuring 300 square yards falling in Khasra No. 94. Both the properties have been acquired in pursuance to an agreement of sale on power of attorney but there is no registered document of title. The petitioner has stated in the writ petitions that though he was lawful and bona fide purchaser in possession, the respondents are threatening to demolish the properties of the petitioner on the ground that it is located in an unauthorised colony. It is further stated that 1071 unauthorised colonies have been recommended for regularisation and that Madhu Vihar is one of the colonies. The colony is stated to be electrified. It is further stated that the colony is 90 to 100% built up.

( 2 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 DDA in CW No. 6424/1998, it is stated that the petitioner under the garb of claiming ownership over a part of Khasra No. 94 is actually trying to encroach in khasra No. 93 which stand acquired and placed at the disposal of DDA and is lying vacant at site. It is further stated that khasra in question was acquired vide award N0. 49c/70-71 and the land was placed at disposal of DDA vide notification under Section 22 (1) of D. D. A. Act bearing No. F9 (30)76 L and B dated 30. 3. 1983. The vacant piece of land was sought to be protected by fencing the land in question which is stated to have been objected to by the petitioner and the interim orders passed in the present writ petition were produced at that stage. It is further stated that even khasra No. 94 stands acquired and placed at the disposal of the DDA at 30. 3. 1983. It is further stated that there is no move to have any demolition action on

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the fact that the matter in controversy relates to regularisation of the unauthorised colonies which is pending consideration and that the colony of the petitioner is of 1071 colonies, there cannot be any attempt of pick and chose action. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draw strength from the order of the Division Bench passed in CW No. 4771/1993 on 17. 8. 1998 where the issue of regularisation of such unauthorised colonies was being dealt with. The division Bench observed as under;

"in respect of the colonies on the government land and other colonies which are not be regularised for one reason or the other, it is high time that the government takes a definite decision. Over the years we have passed repeated orders impressing upon the Government that the result of not taking decision is resulting in corruption at various levels. We are not suggesting for the present. Whether a particular colony shall be regularised or not but what we are directing is to take a definite decision to its logical end by demolition house and not merely demolition of only few selected house but the colony as a whole. "

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further contends that no Building Bye-laws applied in the area in question and thus there cannot be any restriction on the petitioner.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 1 on the other hand contends that there is no right vests in the petitioner to get the relief as claimed in the petitions and that as set out in the counter affidavit in CW No. 6424/1998, the attempt of the petitioner therein is to encroach upon the open areas under the pretext that the matter is pending consideration before the competent authorities in respect of the regularisation.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balmokand khatri Educational And Industrial Trus