Back
2010 Supreme(Del) 1176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Lajpat Rai Sobti - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 6032/2008
Decided On : 20-09-2010
Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikram Nandrajog & Mr. Sushil Jaswal, Advocates for the Respondent No. 2 NDPL.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3 MCD.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – DESU installed a transformer – Petition to remove the said transformer from the property of the petitioner – Neither NDPL nor Govt. claimed any title to said portion of the property – Petition pending for the last over two years – Unauthorized occupation is of more than thirty years – Respondents directed to vacate the property on or before 30th June, 2011.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
- The petitioner owns the property at No. 308/09, Shahazada Bagh Industrial Area, Delhi, and has been in possession for over 30 years, during which a transformer was installed by a utility entity without claiming title to the property (!) (!) .
- The property has been used for a transformer/sub-station installation, which the petitioner claims is hazardous and unauthorized, as the utility company has no claim of ownership over the land (!) (!) .
- The petitioner has made multiple efforts to have the transformer removed, including representations and legal proceedings, but the utility company has not relocated the transformer despite the passage of over three decades (!) (!) .
- The property ownership is supported by registered sale deeds, and historical correspondence indicates the installation of the transformer was with the knowledge and consent of the property owner, although not explicitly documented in the sale deeds (!) (!) (!) .
- The utility company’s rights are limited to use as a licensee, as the transfer scheme indicates that the land and assets did not vest in the utility but remained with the government, which retains ownership (!) (!) .
- The court finds there are no disputed questions of fact regarding ownership or the property's status, and the petitioner’s title is well established (!) (!) .
- The court concludes that the utility’s continued occupation is unauthorized and that the license to use the land has expired, thereby entitling the petitioner to seek removal of the transformer and vacating of the premises (!) (!) .
- The court directs the respondents to vacate the property by a specified date, with a provision for monthly compensation if they fail to do so, and imposes costs on the utility company for contesting the case (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The order emphasizes that the utility company’s argument about the necessity of the transformer does not justify their continued occupation, especially given the lack of effort to find alternative arrangements over the past 30 years (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this document.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. This petition has been filed claiming that the petitioner is the owner of property No. 308/09, Shahazada Bagh Industrial Area, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi-110 035 and is carrying on PVC business therefrom; that in the front portion of the property, the erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU) had installed a transformer; that the petitioner since the purchase of the property was pursuing DESU, thereafter substituted by Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and lastly by the respondent No. 2 North Delhi Power Ltd. (NDPL) for removal, re-location of the Transformer; several representations were made in this regard but to no avail. The petitioner claims the existence of the Transformer in his property to be hazardous. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 NDPL at one stage demanded Rs. 25,00,000/- from him for removal of the said Transformer and which he refused to pay. The petitioner pleads that the respondent No. 2 NDPL has no right to continue with its Transformer in the property of the petitioner and being an instrumentality of State, cannot violate the property rights of the petitioner. This petition is filed for directing the respondents to remove the said transformer from the property of the petitioner and claiming compensation from the respondents.
2. Notice of the petition was issued. Neither the respondent No. 1 Govt. of NCT of Delhi nor the respondent No. 2 NDPL filed counter affidavit inspite of opportunity. The right to file counter affidavit was closed on 16th December, 2008. On 6th March, 2009, the respondent No. 2 NDPL was directed to produce the original records pertaining to the subject matter of the writ petition. On 7th August, 2009, the counsel for the respondent No. 2 NDPL stated that the original records also were not traceable; the petitioner on that date was directed to place on record the photographs of the site and which have been filed by the petitioner. Vide order dated 4th November, 2009, respondent No. 3 MCD was impleaded as a party for arriving at a meaningful resolution of the urgent problem. Thereafter from time to time directions were given for finding an amicable resolution to the matter and for re-location of the Transformer aforesaid. However, the respondent No. 3 MCD filed an affidavit stating that it has nothing to do with the matter. On 26th July, 2010, the counsel for the respondent No. 3 MCD also stated that there is no dispute that the property where the Transformer / Sub-station is situated is of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 MCD has no control over it.
3. On 26th July, 2010, the counsel for the respondent No. 2 NDPL also relied on the order dated 14th March, 2007 of this Court in WP(C) No. 535/2007 titled Vijay Kumar Mittal v. NDPL. The petitioner in that case also had sought removal of the Transformer in his property; during the pendency of the petition directions for exploring amicable settlement were issued and the counsel for the NDPL on 14th March, 2007 produced Minutes of a Meeting recording terms and conditions on which the Transformer / Sub-Station was agreed to be removed; though it was the case of NDPL that the said Minutes were co-signed by the petitioner in that case also, but the petitioner before the Court denied that he had agreed to what was recorded in the Minutes and it was in these circumstances that the writ petition was disposed of observing that the same involved disputed questions of fact which could not be effectively adjudicated in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 NDPL relying on the said order had sought dismissal of this petition also. However, this Court in the order dated 26th July, 2010 observed that the parties could not be relegated to the suit if no disputed questions of fact arose. It was observed that the respondent No. 2 NDPL had not controverted the claim of the petitioner, neither by filing the counter affidavit nor even in
