SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 5785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Dargha Najeebuddin Firdousi - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Devlopment Authority & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 840 of 2023 With W.P.(C) 17480 of 2022, W.P.(C) 378 of 2023, W.P.(C) 1770 of 2023, W.P.(C) 1779-1780 of 2023, W.P.(C) 1845 of 2023, W.P.(C) 1858 of 2023, W.P.(C) 1861-1862 of 2023, W.P.(C) 1869-1871 of 2023, W.P.(C) 1880 of 2023, W.P.(C) 1882 of 2023, W.P.(C) 1894 of 2023, W.P.(C) 1947- 1948 of 2023, W.P.(C) 1953 of 2023, W.P.(C) 2001 of 2023, W.P.(C) 2017 of 2023, W.P.(C) 2536 of 2023 and W.P.(C) 5359 of 2023.
Decided On : 08-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Samrat Nigam, Advocate and Mr. Amit Punj, Advocate, Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate, Mr. Vidit Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Chetan Singh, Advocate, Ms. Smita Maan, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Maan, Advocate, M.S. Khan, Mr. Daniyal Ayyuri, Advocate and Mr. M. Arshya, Advocate, Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Aditya, Advocate, Ms. Anjani Kr. Mishra, Advocate and Mr. Bibhuti Bhushan Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kotla Harshvardhan, Advocate, Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Advocate, Ms. Rishbita Arora, Advocate, Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Vishal, Advocate, Mr. Amresh bind, Advocate, Ms. Tusharita Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay, Advocate and Mr. Naseem, Advocate, Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shivankar Rao, Advocate, Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Advocate, Ms. Muskaan Gopal, Advocate and Ms. Vidhi Udayshankar, Advocate, Ms. Garima Prashad, Senior Advocate with Ms. Roohe Hina Dua, Advocate, Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Advocate, Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Govil Upadhyaya, Advocate and Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Varun Singh, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Advocate, Ms. Kajal Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Somesha Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Ytharth Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Advocate, Ms. Smriti Wadhwa, Advocate and Ms. Pankaj Kumar Modi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advocate, Ms. Rini V. Tigga, Advocate and Ms. Nidhi Thakur, Advocate, Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate, Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Katyal, SC with Mr. Chand Chopra, Advocate, Ms. Devika Mohan, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Singh, Advocate, Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Counsel-GNCTD with Mr. Divyam Kamra, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC for MCD with Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate, Mr. Harshal Arora, Advocate for BSES, Mr. Ajay Digpaul, SC for MCD with Ms. Swati Kwatra, Ms. Ishita Pathak and Mr. Kamal Rattan Digpaul, Advocate, Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Hemant Shah, Advocate, Mr. Akshay Rana, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Advocate, Mr. Pushpender Singh Charak, Advocate, Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Advocate and Ms. Pinki Yadav, Advocate, Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC (Civil) with Mr. Abhishek Khari, Advocate and Ms. Disha Choudhary, Advocate for GNCTD, Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Advocate and Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC GNCTD with Ms. Sheenu Priya, Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Muhammad Zaid, Advocate, Mr. Sudhir, Advocate and Mr. Sumit Choudhary, Advocate for GNCTD, Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate, Ms. Swega Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Rajat M. Dwivedi, Advocate and Ms. Bhavi Garg, Advocate, Ms. Rachita Garg, Advocate for GNCTD and Mr. Vineet Dhanda, Advocate, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasizes the obligation of the DDA to ensure procedural fairness to those affected by its actions, upholding the petitioners' objection regarding the lack of a fair hearing before the demolition action.

Headnote:

Demolition Notice - Land Dispute - Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957, Section 30 - The judgment primarily addresses the challenge to the demolition notice issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) targeting unauthorized occupations in the vicinity of Village Ladha Sarai. The court refrains from adjudicating on the disputes rooted in the factual determinations and outcomes embodied in the demarcation report, and instead grants the petitioners the right to present their case before the competent authority or courts of jurisdiction. The court upholds the petitioners' objection regarding the lack of a fair hearing before the demolition action and quashes the demolition notice, directing the DDA to ensure a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard before any further demolition action is initiated.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenge the demolition process initiated by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) targeting unauthorized occupations in the vicinity of Village Ladha Sarai, asserting their ownership over properties in khasra No. 1151/3 of Village Mehrauli, New Delhi. The petitioners contend that their properties fall within the bounds of khasra No. 1151/3 and should not be subject to the demolition notice. The DDA maintains that the properties infringe upon Government or forest land under its protection and conservation mandate.

Finding of the Court:

The court refrains from adjudicating on the disputes rooted in the factual determinations and outcomes embodied in the demarcation report and grants the petitioners the right to present their case before the competent authority or courts of jurisdiction. The court upholds the petitioners' objection regarding the lack of a fair hearing before the demolition action and quashes the demolition notice, directing the DDA to ensure a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard before any further demolition action is initiated.

Issues: The primary issues include the legality of the demolition notice, the authenticity of the demarcation report, and the lack of a fair hearing before the demolition action.

Ratio Decidendi: The court refrains from adjudicating on factual disputes and technical assessments related to demarcation, emphasizing that such matters fall within the expertise and jurisdiction of statutory authorities. The court upholds the petitioners' objection regarding the lack of a fair hearing before the demolition action, emphasizing the obligation of the DDA to ensure procedural fairness to those affected by its actions.

Final Decision: The court quashes the demolition notice and directs the DDA to ensure a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard before any further demolition action is initiated. The petitions are disposed of, and the court leaves all rights and contentions of parties regarding the demarcation report open.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. - Asserting their claim of ownership over properties purportedly falling in khasra No. 1151/3 of Village Mehrauli, New Delhi, the Petitioners have raised a challenge to the demolition process of removing encroachments upon the Mehrauli Archaeological Park, New Delhi ["Park"], being undertaken by Delhi Development Authority ["DDA"] to protect and preserve the Park's heritage. The Petitioners' primary grievance is that DDA's demolition order targets unauthorized occupations specifically in the vicinity of Village Ladha Sarai, rather than Village Mehrauli. Consequently, they argue that such orders should not extend to, nor affect, their properties.

2. During the course of proceedings, it came to the Court's attention that there are several petitions pending on the subject matter at hand before the Bench of Single Judge of this Court. Additionally, this Bench is concurrently considering a Public Interest Litigation ["PIL"], W.P.(C) 4302/2015 that has significant relevance to the ongoing demolition operations conducted by the DDA. Thus, in order to avoid any conflicting directions and also given the commonality and overlap in the issues and contentions urged in all these petitions, we considered it apposite to tag all the matters and render a consolidated judgement. To ensure clarity and with consensus of all parties, this judgment will predominantly address the facts and arguments presented in W.P.(C) 1845/2023.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The facts and proceedings germane for contextual understanding of the present lis, are as follows:

3.1. Driven by their commitment towards conservation of cultural legacy of the Park, in 2015, the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, Delhi instituted the afore-noted PIL for restoration of the defaced and encroached monuments situated within the Park, and for formulation of a Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan. In the said proceedings, this Court ordered the DDA to secure the entire area and remove encroachments therefrom., Vide order dated 29th April, 2015. To this effect, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ["GNCTD"], through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was directed to initiate demarcation process of the Park., On 27th May, 2015. Consequently, demarcation report(s) and site map(s) were prepared, basis whereof unauthorized constructions were identified and DDA proceeded with the demolition process.

3.2. On 12th December, 2022, the DDA notified the impugned demolition order, calling upon the persons occupying the land illegally, to vacate the premises within ten days from the date of said order. In the event of noncompliance, the DDA would then initiate removal/ demolition of the encroached structures. This notice was appended to the walls of inter alia Petitioners' properties, thus requiring them to evacuate the premises or experience the consequences.

3.3. Contending that their properties are situated in Village Mehrauli, and not Village Laddha Sarai, Petitioners submitted several representations to the Deputy Director, DDA. However, the same did not yield a positive response. DDA maintained that the Petitioners' properties lie within the bounds of Government land, and therefore, must be demolished.

3.4. The above-noted stand of the DDA prompted the filing of W.P. (C) 17480/2022 against the demolition order dated 12th December, 2022. In the said petition, on 23rd December, 2022, learned Single Judge of this Court restrained DDA from taking any coercive steps pursuant to the demolition order, in respect of the concerned Petitioners. The remaining Petitioners also resorted to filing of their respective writ petitions, wherein similar orders instructing DDA to maintain status quo were issued by learned Single Judge.

3.5. Later, in view of the fact that the impugned demolition order was premised on the demarcation report dated 21st December, 2021 prepared consequent to the PIL, the DDA preferred an application [C.M. APPL. 24888/2023] in W.P.

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    Judicial Analysis

    AI

    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top