IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yashwant Varma, Dharmesh Sharma, JJ.
Resident Welfare Association Kapashera – Appellant
Versus
Sub Divisional Magistrate Kapashera & Ors. – Respondents
LPA 91 of 2022, CM APPL. 6455 of 2022 (Stay) and CM APPL. 6458 of 2022 (Add. Document)
Decided On : 20-07-2023
Letters Patent Appeal - Installation of Gates on Public Road - Delhi High Courts Act, 1996, Section 10 - W.P.(C) No. 4927/2020 - Installation of gates at points 'A' and 'B' challenged by Resident Welfare Association Kapashera - Directions issued for installation of gates Z1, Z6, A and B - Contribution for gates to be borne by farmhouse residents - Dismissal of appeal for lack of locus standi
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between Resident Welfare Association Kapashera and Smt. Geeta Singh over the installation of gates at points 'A' and 'B' on a public road in Kapashera Estate, New Delhi. Smt. Geeta Singh filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the order allowing the installation of gates, claiming that it was being done to protect the interest of a few elitist farm owners and would severely hamper her movement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the installation of gates required permission from the Deputy Commissioner of SDMC as per the provision of Delhi Municipal Act, 1954, and Guidelines dated 25 June 2007. The court also issued directions for the installation of gates Z1, Z6, A, and B, with contributions to be borne by farmhouse residents. The court dismissed the appeal filed by Resident Welfare Association Kapashera for lack of locus standi.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the installation of gates at specific points on a public road, the rights of farmhouse residents, and the authority required for such installations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions of the Delhi Municipal Act, 1954, and Guidelines dated 25 June 2007, which governed the installation of gates on public roads. The court also considered the rights of farmhouse residents and the lack of locus standi of the Resident Welfare Association Kapashera in the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed for lack of locus standi, and the court's directions for the installation of gates Z1, Z6, A, and B were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Dharmesh Sharma, J. (Oral)
1. This judgement shall decide a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant Resident Welfare Association Kapashera in terms of Clause X of Letters Patent of Lahore (as applicable to the Delhi High Court) read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Courts Act, 1996, challenging the final judgment/order dated 22 February 2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4927/2020 in case titled Smt. Geeta Singh & Anr. v. The Sub Divisional Magistrate (Kapashera) & Ors., passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the Writ Petition was disposed of with certain directions allowing respondent No. 2 Kapashera Estates. Resident Welfare Association to erect gates at points `A' and `B' (as indicated in the map, which form part of the judgment) on a public road in Kapashera Estate, New Delhi.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly stated, respondent No. 3 Smt. Geeta Singh was at logger head with the respondent No. 2 Kapashera Estates. Resident Welfare Association over installation of gates at points `A' and `B' on a public road in Kapashera Estates.. The Writ Petition No. 4927/2020 was filed by respondent No.3 Smt. Geeta Singh wife of late Sh. N.B. Singh, seeking quashing of order dated 16 July 2020 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kapashera/R-1, whereby the application of Respondent No.2, the Kapashera Estates. Welfare Society for installation of security gates at points `A' and `B' in the Kapashera Estate, as shown in the map annexed, was allowed.
3. In a nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner/respondent No. 3 Ms. Geeta Singh resident of Farm no. 1 was that the iron gates had only been sought to be erected to confer benefit to a handful of Farm houses viz., occupants of Farm Nos.2, 6 to 9 over land, that too on the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. She refuted the assumptions that the iron gates had been put up for security reasons of the Kapashera Estate and claimed that it was being done to protect interest of few elitist farm owners in connivance with the SDM & other authorities concerned. She claimed that she was a senior citizen of 71 years of age living alone at Farm No. 1 Kapashera Estate. It was brought out that her late husband was the founding member of the association and her grievance was that the non-inclusive association were determined to put iron gates and exclude her Farm and deny her access to the public road and severely hamper her movement.
4. Per contra, the Resident Welfare Association Kapashera relied on directions in W.P.(C) No. 8242/2017 dated 30 April, 2019 whereby the High Court of Delhi had passed directions to them to make a fresh application for installation of iron gates to the SDM, Kapashera and the SDM was directed to afford a hearing to the Society as well as Ms. Geeta Singh with liberty to the parties to place all the relevant documents before the SDM and after affording hearing to decide the dispute within four weeks.
5. Suffice to state that whereas the Resident Welfare Association Kapashera produced map showing probable locations of gates at points `A' and `B', Ms. Geeta Singh wanted the gate to be installed at point `C' instead of at point `B' as shown in the Map produced by the RWA. It would be expedient to re-produce the decision rendered by the SDM vide order dated 16 July 2020, which reads as under:-
"After hearing both the parties and all the above facts as well as keeping in mind the safety and security of all residents living in the Kapashera Estate, the undersigned is of view that the request of RWA Association Kapashera is liable to be allowed and hereby allowed that the gate should be installed at point `A' & `B' (instead of point `C') as shown in the map enclosed herewith because gates are being erected at the ends of roads and I am of the view that there is no partiality."
6. Aggrieved of the said order dated 16 July 2020, respondent No.3 Ms. Geeta Singh and Respondent No. 4 Mr. Mahinder Kumar Tandon R/o Farm No.1A Kapashera filed W.P.(C) No. 4927/2020 which is sti
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for permission under the Delhi Municipal Act, 1954, and Guidelines dated 25 June 2007 for the installation of gates on public ro....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the installation of gates should be based on contributions from all farmhouse residents, as directed by the court.
Installation of residential security gates must comply with municipal regulations and account for collective security interests of all property residents.
Administrative bodies must ensure a right to fair hearing as part of procedural justice, particularly when decisions affect stakeholders, or previous directions from the court are not followed.
The Appellate Court cannot, in an appeal against an interim order, appoint a commissioner to collect evidence on merits or pre-emptively decide factual disputes that are explicitly reserved for full ....
The court emphasized the need to maintain equitable balance between the parties and found that the installation of railings by the defendants violated the previous court order, leading to interferenc....
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.