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) 5555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Anni Shokeen - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 9982 of 2023 & CM APPL. 38464 of 2023
Decided On : 01-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel, for the DDA.
Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocates, for the Respondent-2 and 4.
Ms. Anju Gupta & Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocates, for the Respondent-3 and 4.
Mr. Shubham Singh and Mr. Aayush Gautam, Advocates on behalf of Mr. Karn Bhardwaj, ASC, for the GNCTD for Respondent-5.

Headnote:

Encroachment - Land Dispute - Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India - [CS SCJ 1581/2018] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the writ of mandamus, the scope of the writ, and the doctrine of locus standi. The court emphasized the need for establishing a legal right for the issuance of the writ of mandamus and highlighted the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and Ors. The court concluded that the petitioner lacked locus standi and failed to establish a violation of his individual right, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the removal of alleged illegal encroachment on land designated as a green belt/park owned by the respondent DDA. The petitioner had filed a civil suit for the same, which was withdrawn after the encroachment was partially removed. The petitioner approached the Court again, alleging further encroachment and failure to conserve the property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner lacked locus standi and failed to establish a violation of his individual right. The court also noted that the land in question was already encroachment free, as confirmed by the report submitted by the Special Task Force (STF). As a result, the court dismissed the petition.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's locus standi to file the petition and the alleged illegal encroachment on the land designated as a green belt/park.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for establishing a legal right for the issuance of the writ of mandamus and highlighted the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The court also clarified that the petitioner failed to meet the conditions necessary to prove locus standi and that the land in question was already encroachment free, based on the report submitted by the STF.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to establish a violation of his individual right and lacked locus standi to file the petition.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral) - The instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

    "A. issue Writ, order and/or directions to the respondents m the nature of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to conduct demarcation, remove all existing encroachment and thereafter construct the appropriate boundary wall with necessary grills and gates around the green belt/ park in question situated at Pkt-00, Main Kanjhawala road, Ward no.-26 Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi-110085 and/or;

    B. direct the respondents to conduct periodic checking/survey and take legal action thereafter against the encroachers, if any possible future encroachment or tree cutting is done by any encroacher over the green belt/park in question situated at Pkt-00, Main Kanjhawala road, Ward no.-26 Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi-110085.

    C. Direct the Respondents to plant sufficient trees on the green7 belt/park in question and to maintain the green belt/park in question on regular basis in such a way that the petitioner and the near by residents of Pkt-00, Main Kanjhawala Road, Ward No. 26, Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi 110085 can use the said green belt/ park in question and/or;

    D. Pass any other order/ orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition for removal of alleged illegal encroachment on the land situated at Pkt-00, Main Kanjhawala Road, ward no. 26, Sector-1, Rohini, New Delhi which is owned by the respondent no.1 (`respondent DDA' hereinafter) where the land in question is marked for development as a green belt/park.

3. For the said land, the petitioner had apprehended encroachment and therefore, had filed complaints to various Government Departments seeking removal of the said encroachment and conservation of trees and fencing around the said land, however, due to inaction by the said departments, the petitioner filed a suit bearing no. CS SCJ 1581/2018 against the respondent DDA and MCD before the District Court, Rohini.

4. During pendency of the said suit, the petitioner continued approaching the concerned officers and also filed an RTI seeking details as to whether the said land/park has been handed over to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (`MCD' hereinafter), however, the status of the ownership became clear once the MCD filed their written statements in the abovesaid suit filed by the petitioner and therefore, ownership of the respondent DDA was established.

5. It has been stated that in the year 2021, the respondent DDA removed the encroachment partly and therefore, the said suit pending before the learned Trial Court was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 15th December, 2021.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi by way of filing various online complaints starting from 18th January, 2022 regarding the subsequent encroachment on the said land belonging to the DDA, however, allegedly, no action was taken by any of the Government Departments.

7. Therefore, aggrieved by the said alleged inaction and further encroachment on the land, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to fulfill their obligations imposed upon them by way of Statutes and in turn have violated the petitioners rights enshrined under the Constitution of India.

9. It is submitted that the petitioner and other residents of the concerned locality are being restrained in using the green belt/park since the same has been encroached upon illegally.

10. It is submitted that the respondents are not fulfilling their legal and statutory duties to maintain and prevent any encroachment on the land designated as green belt/park.

11. It is submitted that the said encroachment on the land has restrained the petitioner and other residents of the locality to use it as a public uti

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