* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1407/2003

TAJUDDIN & ORS.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Adv.

versus

D.D.A. & ORS.

..... Respondent

Through Ms.Saroj Bidawat, Adv. for UOI.

Mr.Gaurav Sarin, Adv. for DDA.

Mr.H.P.Sahu for Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Adv. for

Respondent no.3.

Mr.K.S.Bhati for Delhi Wakf Board.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

O R D E R

% 26.03.2008

2008:DHC:1128

1.The petitioners claim to be the residents of village Begumpur and have

filed the present petition for direction to the respondents including Delhi

Wakf Board and DDA to maintain graveyard in khasra no.110 of village

Begumpur, Delhi and not to use the said land as a park or garden.

Direction is also sought to restrain DDA from taking possession of the

graveyard and make a public park in the said area.

2.In the writ petition it is mentioned that the land in question was also subject

matter of SLP (Civil) No.6757/1983 titled “Delhi Wakf Board vs. UOI and

Ors.” which was disposed of on 10.04.1990 with a direction to Land

Acquisition Collector to conduct a fresh enquiry and if he comes to a

positive finding as to the existence of any tomb or graveyard or the like, he

shall exclude such portion or portions from acquisition. One of the prayers

made in the writ petition is that the Land Acquisition Collector, Union of

India and GNCT of Delhi should enquire in terms of the directions issued

by the Supreme Court.

3.The respondent/DDA in their additional affidavit filed on 17.8.2006 has

clarified that the aforesaid SLP and Order dated 10.4.1990 related to

village Lado Sarai and not village Begumpur. It is clear that the petitioners

have made false and incorrect averments in the writ petition and have not

come to the Court with clean hands. However, I have examined other

contentions raised by the petitioners on merits.

2008:DHC:1128

4.By Order dated 30^thApril, 2007, file of WP(C) No.7589/2000 tilted „Sakina

Vs. UOI‟ was summoned. The file is available and I have examined the

same. In the said writ petition also reference was made to SLP

No.6757/1983 titled Delhi Wakf Board Vs. UOI & Ors. Ms. Sakina had filed

the said writ petition as owner of Khasra no.110 of village Begumpur,

Delhi, stating inter alia, that the village had been in existence since the

time of Alauddin Khilji and the land has been shown in the revenue record

as Kabristan where kabar/graves of the petitioner‟s ancestors exist and the

said graveyard is adjoining residential premises of Abadi of the said

village. Copy of the revenue records of the said village were also enclosed.

This writ petition also mentions that Notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.12.1961, for which declaration was

made on 26.6.1962 and the Collector of Land Acquisition had made his

Award on 31.10.1962. A Division Bench of this Court examined the

contentions raised and dismissed the said writ petition observing as under

:

“As per the affidavit filed on behalf of DDA possession of the

land was taken over on 23.11.1962 which was followed by

another notification issued under Section 22(1) of the Delhi

Development Act on 3.1.1968 making over the land to the

DDA. Challenge now made in this petition is not highly

belated but without any substance. Learned counsel for the

petitioner states that the petitioner was seeking her remedy

before the Civil Court and was asked to avail remedy to

challenge acquisition proceedings. Needless to add that the

civil suit was also filed only in the year 1997 being civil suit

2008:DHC:1128

no.809/97 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.1.2001.

Dismissed.”

5.It is clear from the above findings of the Division Bench that this Court has

held that Ms. Sakina should not be permitted and allowed to question and

challenge Notification issued under Section 22 of the Delhi Development

Act dated 3.1.1968 after lapse of 32 years in the year 2000. The Division