VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions is concerned with the eviction of the Petitioners from shops duly allotted to them or their forefathers for reestablishing them, their trade and thereby rehabilitating them pursuant to their traumatic dislocation in the aftermath of the Partition, a half-century ago.

( 2 ) THE prayers in these writ petitions read thus: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records containing the proposal to acquire the land on which the Petitioners No. 2-105 have their shops on the Panchkuian road ostensibly for the purpose of line-3, Barakhamba Road-Dwarka line of the Respondent No. 1 Corporation and consequent road widening and construction of sidewalk and quash the identical notices dated 25. 8. 2005 bearing number dmrc/land/15/428/773, 832 to 919. Threatening the Petitioners with demolition of their shops as acquisition is in excess of the genuine need of the Respondent No. 3 sought to be acquired for no justified reasons on extraneous considerations. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the Petitioners from their shops as Petitioners are prepared to hand over the possession of the eight feet of land from their respective shops for line-3 Barakhamba Road-Dwarka Metro Rail project of the respondent No. 1 and road widening/construction of sidewalk. (c) Pass any other order which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS (a) Disputed Questions of fact.

( 3 ) MR. Raj Birbal, the learned Senior Advocate for the MCD, has raised a preliminary objection pertaining to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the grounds that manifold disputed questions of facts would have to be determined by this Court. In D. L. F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. vs. Delhi municipal Corporation, AIR 1976 SC 386, the Hon ble Court has opined that ?where the basic facts are disputed and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved the writ Court is not the proper forum for seeking relief?. In Sohanlal vs. Union of India, [1957] SCR 738 the question that had arisen was whether the ?eviction of Jagan Nath was in contravention of the express provisions of s. 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction) Act. His eviction, therefore, was illegal. He was entitled to be evicted in due course of law and a writ of mandamus could issue to or an order in the nature of mandamus could be made against the Union of India to restore possession of the property to Jagan nath from which he had been evicted the property was still in the possession of the Union of India. The property in dispute, however, is in possession of the appellant. There is no evidence and no finding of the High Court that the appellant was in collusion with the Union of India or that he had knowledge that the eviction of Jagan Nath was illegal. Normally, a writ of mandamus does not issue to or an order in the nature of mandamus is not made against a private individual. Such an order is made against a person directing him to do some particular thing, specified in the order, which appertains to his office and is in the nature of a public duty (Halsbury s Laws of England Vol. II, Lord Simonds edition. p. 84 ). If it had been proved that the Union of India and the appellant had colluded, and the transaction between them was merely colourable, entered into with a view to deprive Jagan Nath of his rights, jurisdiction to issue writ to or make an order in the nature of mandamus against the appellant might be said to exist in a Court?. This decision in my view advances the cause of the Petitioners who are in possession of the shops for several years and against whom neither civil eviction proceedings nor ejectment proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `public Premises Act ) have been initiated. The Cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document