Back
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Balwant Rai Arora – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 1, Delhi Development Authority (`DDA'), to restrain itself from either demolishing or dispossessing the Petitioner from the residential property bearing no. 172, Cariappa Marg, Khirki Extn., MB Road, (`the subject property'), situated in Khasra No. 443, Village Khirki, Delhi. The petition states that the subject property is located in the unauthorized colony of `Khirki Extn., Colony Cariappa Marg, MB Road, New Delhi'.
2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of Respondent No. 1, DDA, to the extent that the officials of Respondent, DDA, have threatened to demolish the subject property, which is in possession and occupation of the Petitioner herein. He is further aggrieved by the demolition order No. LM/SSII/0007/2022/F1/DEMO-SS-II(LM)-II/164 dated 19.10.2022, issued by the Deputy Director (Land Management) S & S II, DDA, during the pendency of the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner along with certain other individuals purchased a parcel of land falling in Khasra Nos. 442 and 443, from the earlier owner Sh. Sukh
The judiciary's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring the authority of subordinate courts, not correcting factual errors.
Point of Law : Grant of temporary injunction - Demarcation report - Demarcation report included determination of location of suit premises. A modern method of TSM has been used to demarcate land. Cla....
The importance of establishing right, title, and interest in a property through evidence and the finality of judgments in previous legal proceedings.
The concept of 'Due Process' and its application in property disputes, as well as the limitations of the court's powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
A person in adverse possession cannot claim ownership against a true owner, and relief for regularization must be pursued through the competent authority, not the Civil Court.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession of the property to obtain relief, and mere claims of ownership by a defendant do not suffice to cloud the title of the plai....
In a suit for permanent injunction, a plaintiff must establish possession; mere claims of ownership without evidence do not suffice to challenge established rights.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession; failure to contest evidence leads to confirmation of ownership and injunction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioner's representation under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 was rejected by the Respondents and was not maintainable. The Petitioner's....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
