The petitioner's failure to establish ownership and suppression of relevant documents led to the dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs :-

'i. To, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the demolition notice dated 02.12.2022, (Annexure No. 9) and further the letter dated 24.02.2020, (Annexure No. 7) issued by the respondent no.2;

ii. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to not in any manner interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit property;

iii. To issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iv. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.'

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the plot admeasuring 92.93 sq. meters, which she purchased, vide registered Sale Deed dated 14.05.2012, from Kundan Lal Sah Religious and Charitable Trust, who are stated to be the original owners of the said land. A copy of the Sale Deed has been placed on record. The same, however, does not disclose the description of the land, except to mention its boundaries as 'A, B, C, D'.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents issued a notice in the name of the petitioner's husband - Late Shri Nain Singh, alleging raising of unauthorized construction, on the land. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondents came out with a scheme for one time regularization/ compounding of unauthorized construction on 29.11.2014. She states that she applied for compounding/ regularization under the said scheme, on 27.02.2015, in her own name. It appears from the record that the demolition order was passed in the proceedings initiated by the respondents on 13.04.2015. The petitioner states that the said demolition order was challenged by her husband in a statutory appeal, under Section 27 of the Special Area Development Authority Act. The said Appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner, or her husband, did not take any further steps in the matter.

4. The petitioner states that the respondents issued notice dated 24.02.2020, in the name of the petitioner's husband - Late Shri Nain Singh. Shri Nain Singh passed away on 04.05.2021. The respondents have once again issued a notice on 02.12.2022, stating that in case demolition is not carried out of the unauthorized construction, they would do so in pursuance of the aforesaid demolition notice. In this background, the present Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire proceedings are vitiated by the fact that the notice was issued to Shri Nain Singh, and not to the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the property in question. The petitioner has also availed of the scheme brought out by the respondents for one time regularization/ compounding, by making her application on 27.02.2015, which has still not been decided.

6. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mahinder Singh and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi; 34 (1988) DLT 118, as also on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana v. Inderjit Singh & Anr.; (Civil Appeal No. 5948 of 2008), decided on 01.10.2008.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. First and foremost, we find that the petitioner has suppressed pertinent and relevant documents from the Court. The demolition order dated 13.04.2015, which finds mention in the notice dated 24.02.2020, has not been placed on record. Even the order dismissing the appeal has not been filed. On this short ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Secondly, even on merits, we do not find that the petitioner has made out a case. Admittedly, the construction of the property was undertaken without any prior sanction, and it is not even the case of the petitioner, that she and her husband were living separately. The notice was issued in the name of the p