IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Premwati – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 7836 of 2016 & CM APPLs. 32389 of 2016 & 17401 of 2017
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Demolition - Land Dispute - Aks-sizra, Demarcation Report - [Urbanisation, Encroachment, Demolition] - [Not specified] - The court considered the Aks-sizra of village Tikri Kalan and the demarcation report to determine the ownership of the land and directed the authorities to pass a speaking order after considering all documents and granting proper hearing to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner raised a grievance that the respondents demolished a wall on the petitioner's land under the garb of taking demolition action in a different area. The respondents claimed that the wall constituted encroachment on public land, while the petitioner disputed this claim based on the Aks-sizra and demarcation report.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the submissions and perused the record, finding that the petitioner's land is separate from the public land owned by the respondents. The court treated the petition as a representation and directed the authorities to pass a speaking order after considering all documents and granting proper hearing to the petitioner.
Issues: Ownership dispute, demolition action, encroachment on public land, demarcation report challenge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Aks-sizra and demarcation report to determine the ownership of the land and directed the authorities to pass a speaking order after considering all documents and granting proper hearing to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition and directed the authorities to pass a speaking order after considering all documents and granting proper hearing to the petitioner, allowing the petitioner to re-construct the wall on their own land and seek legal remedy if aggrieved.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
1. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is that demolition action that was to be taken by the respondents in an area situated in Khasra No. 1379/1, has actually been taken on the land of the petitioner in Khasra No. 29/10/2 and Khasra No. 30/6/1 of village Tikri Kalan. It is submitted that the wall which was existing on the aforesaid Khasra under the ownership of the petitioner was wrongly demolished by the respondents, in the garb of taking demolition action in Khasra No. 1379/1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Aks-sizra of village Tikri Kalan, which has been annexed as Annexure -II to the counter affidavit of the respondents. He submits that the said Aks-sizra has been prepared by the respondents themselves from the revenue records, which clearly shows that the land of the petitioner is separate from Khasra No. 1379/1, where action was required to be taken by the respondents.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the village in question has already been urbanised. He further submits that the wall in question which was approximately 8 ft. 3 inches long has been demolished, as the same constituted encroachment on the public land.
3. However, the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondents is vehemently disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the counter affidavit of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that the wall of the petitioner was demolished, as the same was obstructing the entry of the Government Land. Para 7 of the counter affidavit of the respondents is reproduced as below:
"7.That the respondent No.2 on 23.08.2016 has demolished the concern part of the wall which was obstructing the entry on the said government land."
4. Thus, it is submitted that there is a clear admission on the part of the respondents that the wall which was on the land of the petitioner, was demolished only for the reason as the respondents wanted excess to the Government Land. However, by reference to the Aks-sizra, it is submitted that even the said contention is totally wrong as Khasra No.1379/1 where action was to be taken, is situated far away from Khasra Nos. 29/10/2 and Khasra No. 30/6/1 of village Tikri Kalan, as per the Aks-sizra as filed by the respondents themselves.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the short submission filed on their behalf regarding demarcation of the land. Thus, reference has been made to Para Nos. 3 and 4 of the said short submissions, which are reproduced as:
"3. That the demarcation of the said land has been done by TSM through Sh. Jagbir Singh, Prop. M/s N.K Engineers, having Regd. office at E-356, street No. 15, Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110093 and in the report of the demarcation it has been found there is a Khal (Govt. land) of 1 Gattha (which have been not assigned any Khasra No. in the Revenue Record during consolidation Period) and is adjacent to the Northern Sides of Khasra Nos. 29/10/2 and 30/6/1 which was encroached by the Bhumidars of agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 29/1/2/2 (1-19), 2/1/2 (0-4), 29/10/2 (1-10), 30/6/1 (3-0), 15/1 (2-6) and 28 (0-1) situated in Revenue Estate of Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi. The said Encroachment of the Govt land i.e. Khal of 1 Gattha was removed by BDO (West) vide letter dated 08.08.2016.
4. That according to Demarcation Report done by Total Station Method (TSM), the points of Khasra No. 29/1/2/2 (1-19), 2/1/2 (0-4), 29/10/2 (1-10), 30/6/1 (3- 0), 15/1 (2-6) and 28 (0-1) situated in Revenue Estate of Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi have been marked on the spot and given to bhumidars on 05.05.2018."
6. By reference to the aforesaid, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that demarcation of the land in question was done as per the demarcation report Northern Sides of Khasra No. 29/10/2 and Khasra No. 30/6/1 was encroached by Bhumidars
The central legal point established is the importance of considering all relevant documents and granting proper hearing to the petitioner in land ownership disputes before passing a decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for expeditious decision-making by the Revenue Authorities on pending demarcation applications, the rights of the government to take posse....
The court has the authority to direct demarcation of land and determine the method and costs of demarcation.
The central legal point established is the requirement to grant a hearing to affected parties during demarcation proceedings, and the right to challenge demarcation reports with personal hearing and ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for demarcation to determine the correct location of the petitioner's property, along with the principles of maintaining status qu....
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 Re....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper demarcation to determine the impact of land acquisition on the location of a property and the need for consolidation of re....
The main legal point established is the court's authority to direct demarcation of disputed land based on evidence of encroachment and failure of the relevant authority to take action.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.