The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to grant a personal hearing to the affected persons during demarcation proceedings, as mandated by Rule 170 of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954, and the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed with prayer for directions for quashing and setting aside the impugned Order No. SDM/KH/2022/52686 and Order No. SDM/KH/2022/52963 dated 04.08.2022 and 05.08.2022 respectively.

2. By way of the said orders dated 04.08.2022 and 05.08.2022, the SDM/Revenue Assistant (Kapashera) has held that there is encroachment on the phirni road of Village Shikarpur, New Delhi. The said letters set forth that demarcation was carried out by the concerned Revenue staff through Total Station Method (TSM). During demarcation proceedings, it was found that there was encroachment over the phirni road. Thus, the demolition order was passed by SDM, Kapashera wherein it was directed that in order to remove encroachment from road/Gram Sabha land, demolition drive has been fixed.

3. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders refer to demarcation order, qua which no hearing was ever given to the petitioners.

4. Attention of this Court is drawn to the Notice dated 12.03.2019 issued by the Tehsildar (Kapashera). It is submitted that as per the said notice, the residents of Village Shikarpur were directed to appear before the SDM/Revenue Assistant (Kapashera) along with relevant records, which the said residents wanted to adduce in their defence. The said notice categorically stated that the residents who were the bhumidars were found encroachers/in illegal possession on the Gram Sabha land/phirni/public passage Khasra no. 84.

5. It is submitted that pursuant to the said notice dated 12.03.2019, no hearing was given to the petitioners.

6. Another notice dated 23.08.2019 was issued by subsequent Tehsildar (Kapashera), with directions to the petitioners to appear before the said authority. It is submitted that no hearing was given to the petitioners pursuant to the said notice also.

7. The aforesaid notice dated 23.08.2019 was followed by yet another notice dated 24.10.2019. The said notice was issued by yet another Revenue Official viz. Tehsildar (Kapashera) with directions to the petitioners to appear before the said authority for hearing.

8. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that despite issuance of the aforesaid notices by the Revenue Authorities, no hearing was granted to the petitioners. It is further submitted that there were no orders which were passed pursuant to the said notices.

9. It is submitted that despite non-grant of any hearing to the petitioners or non-passing of any orders pursuant to the aforesaid notices, suddenly the impugned orders for demolition dated 04.08.2022 and 05.08.2022 were received by the petitioners herein, which were issued by the SDM/Revenue Assistant (Kapashera).

10. Learned senior counsel on instructions submits that the said notices/orders were pasted at the residence of the petitioners, thus, the cause of action arose for filing of the present writ petition.

11. It is submitted that the impugned orders for demolition refer to a demarcation report. The said demarcation proceedings has neither been carried in the presence of the petitioners, nor were the petitioners ever called upon for any hearing at the time of carrying out the said demarcation.

12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Shiv Raj and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 564, in order to contend that at the time of carrying out demarcation proceedings, hearing ought to be given to the affected persons. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the following paragraphs:

“17. This Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao vs. A.P. SRTC, AIR 1959 SC 308, held: (AIR p. 327, Para 31)

“31.......Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one