Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judges: Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J. and Neeraj Kishan Kaul, J.
Surya Prakash Tyagi – Appellants
Vs.
Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. (C) 7501/2007 and CM Nos. 750/2007 and 5260 and 5341 of 2009
Decided On: 06.05.2009
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Adv., Sanjeev Ralli, Adv. for Amicus Curiae and Umesh Sharma, Adv. in CM No. 5341/2009
For Respondents/Defendant:Rajeev Sharma, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 and Madan Gera, Adv. for Respondent No. 10
Approaching the court with clean hands and disclosing full and complete facts is essential in public interest litigations.
Headnote:
Gram Sabha - Land Dispute - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Section 81, Section 85 - The court discussed the dispute over the ownership of agricultural lands vested in Gram Sabha and the unauthorized construction on the land. The court referred to the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, specifically Section 81 and Section 85, to address the issue of unauthorized construction and encroachment on the land. The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, to prevent further unauthorized construction and encroachments on the disputed land.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed that agricultural lands vested in Gram Sabha were wrongly recorded in the name of a private company, leading to unauthorized construction and illegal occupation. The court ordered inspections and status reports to ascertain the ownership of the land and prevent further unauthorized construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had filed the writ petition for oblique considerations, withheld material facts, and made false averments. The court concluded that the petitioner approached the court with unclean hands and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner.
Issues: Dispute over ownership of agricultural lands, unauthorized construction, suppression of material facts, and false averments by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's writ petition was not a genuine public interest litigation and was filed for oblique considerations. The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and disclosing full and complete facts.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and a cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the petitioner for suppression of material facts and making false averments.
1. The case of the petitioner in the present writ petition was that the lands in question were agricultural lands and vested in "Gram Sabha". He stated that the lands were wrongly recorded in the name of respondent No. 9 who had further transferred the lands to various persons. The petitioner has alleged that respondent authorities are permitting the illegal occupation and unauthorized construction on "Gaon Sabha" land in village Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi.
.2. When the matter came up before this Court on 6th August, 2008, the following order was passed:
1. The case of the petitioner is that the lands in question are agricultural lands and they are vested in Gram Sabha. He further states that the lands are wrongly recorded in the name of Respondent No. 9 who has further transferred the lands to various persons.
2. In the first instance that notice was issued only to Respondent No. 9. It is necessary to issue notice to other Respondents to ascertain whether the lands have really vested in the Gram Sabha and whether they have been encroached upon.
3. Notice.
4. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Respondents 3 to 8 accepts notice.
5. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner (North) is directed to depute a senior officer to carry out the inspection of the lands in question and to file a status report to this Court about the status of the lands and also whether the lands are Gram Sabha lands. Status report be filed within four weeks from today.
6. List on 10th September 2008.
7. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Thereafter when the matter was listed before the Court on 28th January, 2009, this Court passed the following order:
Petitioner has alleged that the respondents-authorities are permitting illegal occupation and unauthorized construction on Gaon Sabha land in Vill. Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the khatauni for the year 1995-96 vesting the land in Khasra Nos. 22/16/2, 22/17, 22/18, 22/19/1, 22/22/1, 22/23 and 22/24, measuring 13 bighas 19 biswas, in the Gaon Sabha after recording the name of the earlier owner as M/s. Supreme Commercial Enterprises Ltd. He has also drawn our attention to the photographs at pages 68-69 of the paper book which show that fresh construction is being undertaken on vacant land but several portions of the said land are still vacant.
2. On 6th August, 2008, learned Counsel for M/s. Supreme Commercial Enterprises Ltd. had stated that the lands were wrongly recorded in the name of the said company and the said land had been transferred to various persons.
3. Learned Counsel for GNCT of Delhi has filed status report stating, inter alia, that pursuant to proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 order of permanent injunction was passed directing M/s. Supreme Commercial Enterprises Ltd. not to raise any further construction and the S.H.O., Timarpur was directed to ensure that no further construction was carried out. It is further stated that there was violation of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and the land now vests with the Gaon Sabha. Steps have been also taken to ensure that no unauthorized construction or encroachment takes place. As per the status report, there are about 37 inhabited houses in the said khasra and fresh construction was going on in about 5-6 houses.
4. Learned Counsel for the other private respondents submitted that the land in question forms part of a provisionally recognized colony, namely, Hardev Nagar and the said houses were constructed prior to 2001. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has disputed the said submission and submitted that the khasra numbers mentioned above are not part of Hardev Nagar Colony and the respondents are trying to take advantage and benefit of the Notification by claiming that this area is part of Hardev Nagar Colony, though in fact it is outside the said Colony.
5. The sale deeds executed in
