Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA, PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JJ.
Sanmati Sabha – Appellant
Versus
J K Mittal & Ors. – Respondents
LPA No. 518 of 2016
Decided On : 18-12-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. K.L.N. Murty, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.P.S. Rao and Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. J.K. Mittal, Advocate with Rajveer Singh & Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for fresh consideration of the allotment without being influenced by the earlier orders and the requirement for parties to file written representations for consideration by the 'Authority' under the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
Headnote:
Contempt Proceedings - Land Encroachment - Delhi Development Act, 1957 - [Sanmati Sabha] - [Contempt Proceedings, Land Encroachment] - The court discussed the encroachment on public land and the subsequent contempt proceedings. The court highlighted the orders passed in the contempt proceedings and the subsequent developments related to the regularization and allotment of the plot under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The court emphasized the need for fresh consideration of the allotment without being influenced by the earlier orders and directed parties to file written representations for consideration by the 'Authority' under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved contempt proceedings arising from a writ petition for direction to register an FIR against the President of a Residents Welfare Association and for removal of encroachments on public land. The subsequent contempt proceedings focused on encroachment and construction of a temple by Sanmati Sabha. The case also involved applications for regularization and allotment of the plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court recalled earlier orders related to the regularization and allotment of the plot due to non-service of notice to a party. The court emphasized the need for fresh consideration of the allotment without being influenced by the earlier orders and directed parties to file written representations for consideration by the 'Authority' under the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
Issues: The issues included non-compliance with orders related to encroachment, demolition, and regularization of the plot. The court also addressed the non-service of notice to a party in the proceedings related to the regularization and allotment of the plot.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fresh consideration of the allotment without being influenced by the earlier orders and directed parties to file written representations for consideration by the 'Authority' under the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the direction for fresh consideration of the allotment without being influenced by the earlier orders. The court clarified that it would be for the single Judge to decide whether the contempt proceedings would survive or not.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
This intra court Letters Patent Appeal by Sanmati Sabha, Priyadarshini Vihar, impugns orders dated 29th July, 2016 and 7th September, 2016 passed by single Judges of this court in Contempt Case No. 339/2008.
2. At the outset, we record that though this appeal arises from contempt proceedings, it is not possible to dispose of the appeal keeping in view the parameters of contempt jurisdiction. The reason is a string of orders passed in the contempt proceedings and collateral proceedings which are noticed below. Hence we have tried to find a solution and adjudicate the dispute raised in the present appeal in a larger context and have not strictly gone by scope and ambit contempt jurisdiction. The aim and object has been to ensure that justice is done.
3. Mr. J.K. Mittal the first respondent in the present appeal had filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 153/2007 in which one of the prayers was for direction to register an FIR against Mr. U.S. Vajpayee, the fourth respondent, who was the President of the Residents Welfare Association of Priyadarshini Vihar. In addition, Mr. J.K. Mittal had prayed for direction that all public authorities should be directed to remove encroachment on public land and register cases against encroachers. Directions for initiation of departmental enquiry against the officers of the respondent/Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Police was prayed. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was not a party to the said writ petition. Sanmati Sabha was also not a party to the writ petition. The writ petition did not specifically refer and make assertion about encroachment on public land in the form of construction of a temple by Sanmati Sabha. The said assertion was made in the rejoinder affidavit.
4. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10th August, 2007 rejecting the prayer for registration of an FIR. However, MCD was directed to remove all encroachments on public land and to register cases against encroachers. Direction was given to MCD to take action against all mis-users, illegal users, and unauthorised construction in the area. Deputy Commissioner (South) (sic East) was directed to file an affidavit of compliance within one month. Any direction given by the Court against installation or removal of the gates was to be complied.
5. Mr. J.K. Mittal, thereafter filed Contempt Case No. 339/2008 impleading Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner (MCD) Shahdara Zone as respondents alleging wilful non-compliance.
6. During pendency of the contempt proceedings vide order dated 6th January, 2012, DDA, who was not a party to the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 153/2007, was impleaded as co-respondent to the contempt proceedings.
7. Order dated 8th February, 2013, in the contempt proceedings, records that status reports had been filed by the DDA accepting that land measuring 0.286 acres in Block-A was a part of land allotted to American Embassy Employees Cooperative Housing Society and was earmarked for nursery school upto first floor. This land had been encroached upon and temple etc. had been constructed. There was misuse and illegal construction on the said plot. The Court observed that DDA had failed to take appropriate action viz. Satsang Bhawan, office block and dispensary. Direction was given to the Religious Committee to look into the matter expeditiously and give their report to DDA to enable them to take action as per law.
8. Subsequent, order dated 15th January, 2014 passed in the contempt proceedings records that the Religious Committee after due deliberations had recommend removal of religious structure on the plot. This order mentions that DDA had already approached SHO, Police Station, Shakarpur for aid and assistance. Noticing these facts, the contempt proceedings were adjourned to 17th July, 2014 with the direction to DDA as well as SHO, Shakarpur to file their reports.
9. Sanmati Sabha apprehending demolition action filed Writ Petition (C) No. 9198/2014, which was listed before the s
