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 possession of forest land found within private boundaries, and the limited nature of the petitioner's prayer in the writ petition.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)

W.P.(C) 6922/2023 & CM APPL.26942/2023 (Application under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim directions)

1. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking directions for restoring the demolished boundary wall of the property of the petitioner.

2. It is submitted that petitioner is the owner and in physical possession of land measuring 12 Bighas and 15 Biswas comprising in Khasra Nos. 1338 (Min) (2-15), 1344 (Min) (1-18), 1345 (Min) (1-0) and 1346 (Min) (7-2) in Village Asola, New Delhi, by virtue of Sale Deed dated 06.02.2006.

3. The Forest Department started identifying the lands allotted to it, for the purpose of the reserved forest somewhere in the years 2013 and 2014. The Revenue Department demarcated the forest land and fenced the forest land with proper boundary adjacent to the property of the petitioner. According to map/demarcation of 2014 of the Revenue Department, the property of the petitioner is clearly distinct/different by the presence of road between the property of the petitioner and forest land.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to avoid any confusion, he made an application to the Tehsildar (Revenue), South on 02.05.2014 for demarcation of his land by depositing the requisite fee for the same. However, no action was taken in this regard by the respondents.

5. In the year 2018, National Green Tribunal (NGT) in O.A. No. 58/2013, Sonya Ghosh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, had directed the respondents to conduct demarcation of the forest and ridge land in Delhi. Pursuant thereto, demarcation process was carried out by respondents, for which no notice was ever served on the petitioner.

6. It is submitted that the respondents demolished the boundary wall in the year 2018 around the house of the petitioner. The said demolition was undertaken despite the fact that the demarcation that was done by the Revenue Department in the year 2014, showed the property of the petitioner as clearly distinct and different and as not part of the forest land, as there is a road between the forest land and the property of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted many representations to the respondents for appropriate demarcation of the land/house of the petitioners. However, respondent till date has not been able to either take appropriate steps for demarcation and has not been able to finalized the demarcation.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) 6302/2018, titled as Mahipal Singh Rawat vs. Government of NCT Delhi. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for directions to restrain the respondents from further demolishing and dispossessing the petitioner from the subject property and also to demarcate the subject property. Thus, this Court by order dated 31.05.2018 had disposed of the said writ petition. It was directed that the said petition be treated as a representation and the respondents were directed to pass a speaking order. It was further directed that no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner till the said representation is decided. The material portion of the order dated 31.05.2018 passed in W.P.(C) 6302/2022 is reproduced as below:

"Having considered the directions given by the Co- ordinate Bench and considered die prayers made in the present petition, I am of the view that the respondents are directed to treat the present writ petition as a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the same after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

It is further directed that till the petitioner's representation is decided by the respondents, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner.

Needless to say, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by the respondent on his representation, he will be entitled to take legal recourse as permissible under law."

8. It is