Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Smt. Sudesh Kumari & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2546 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 9757 of 2023 & 9758 of 2023
Decided On : 28-02-2023
Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Karan Sharma, standing counsel, MCD with Mr. Mohit Siwach, Advocates, for the Respondent no. 1.
Mr. Tushar Sannu with Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC (Civil), GNCTD with Mr. Abhishek Khari, Advocate, for the Respondent no. 2 and 3.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 ceases to have any applicability to urbanized areas.
Headnote:
Section 151 CPC - Stay of Impugned Order - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - [Section 139 of DLR Act] - [Summary: The court allowed the application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing clear copies of annexures. The writ petition was filed to set aside the impugned order/warrant of attachment of property issued by the SDM, Rohini under Section 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The court found that the area in question was urbanized, making the DLR Act inapplicable. The impugned order was set aside, and the sealed properties were directed to be de-sealed.]
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed to set aside the impugned order/warrant of attachment of property issued by the SDM, Rohini under Section 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The petitioners claimed that their properties were sealed without issuance of any show cause notice and without adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the area in question was urbanized, making the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 inapplicable. The impugned order was set aside, and the sealed properties were directed to be de-sealed.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of sealing the properties without adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice and the applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 to the urbanized area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once an area has been urbanized, the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 ceases to have any applicability to such areas.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the sealed properties were directed to be de-sealed within seven working days.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 9758/2023 (Application under Section 151 CPC for exemption from filing clear copies of the annexures and filing dim copies)
1. The present is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing clear copies of annexures.
2. Application is allowed, subject to just exceptions.
3. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2546/2023 & CM APPL. 9757/2023 (Application under Section 151 CPC seeking stay of impugned order dated 02.02.2023 and further issuing necessary directions to de-seal the subject properties till the pendency of the present writ petition)
4. The present writ petition has been filed with prayer for setting aside the impugned order/warrant of attachment of property dated 02.02.2023 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Rohini. There is prayer for direction to the respondent no.3 to de-seal the properties of the petitioners viz (i) property bearing no. 6, Pocket-27, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi and (ii) property bearing no. 153-154, Pocket-11, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 is the owner of property No. 6 as aforesaid, and petitioner no. 2 is the tenant of property No. 153-154, as aforesaid.
6. The same have been illegally sealed by the SDM, Rohini/respondent no.3 herein by resorting to proceedings under Section 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR Act). Further, warrant of attachment of property dated 02.02.2023 have been issued by virtue of which the properties of the petitioners have been sealed.
7. It is submitted that the petitioners are running guest house and lodging house in their respective properties with valid Municipal Health Trade Licence issued from the office of respondent no.1 i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Further, the petitioners have also obtained necessary licenses from the Delhi Pollution Control Committee qua their respective properties, which have also been attached along with the present writ petition.
8. It is further submitted that the petitioners have applied for grant of licenses from the office of DCP licensing qua their respective properties which is pending consideration with the competent authority. It is also submitted that the licenses already obtained and applied by the petitioners were much prior in time to the date on which properties of the petitioners have been sealed by the respondent no.3 on 06.02.2023.
9. It is submitted that in pending criminal proceedings, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), North-West District, Rohini Court in the matter pertaining to anticipatory bail application, issued various directions to the SDM, Rohini to appear in person and file report with respect to actions against the guest house/lodging house operating in the area in question. Thus, it is submitted that without issuance of any show cause notice and without adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice and without verifying the fact that the subject properties are running with valid licenses, the impugned order dated 02.02.2023 has been issued, pursuant to which the properties of the petitioners have been sealed.
10. It is further submitted that the area in question i.e. Rohini, is an urbanised area, wherein the provisions of the DLR Act will not be applicable.
11. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
12. Learned standing counsel for MCD submits that the department has verified the documents and that the petitioners have valid Trade Health License duly issued by the MCD.
13. Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and 3 submits that as per verification, the land in question stands urbanised. He further submits that the action has been taken by the concerned SDM, since there were directions from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge during the course of hearing an anticipatory bail petition.
14. I have heard learned counsels for the parties
