Amin Ur Rehman v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi

$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 15/2024 AMIN UR REHMAN .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.Jasbir Singh Malik and Mr.Rashim Bath, Advocates versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr.Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.) for State with Mr.Kshitiz Garg, Mr.Ashvini Kumari and Ms.Chavi Lazarus, Advocates with ASI Om Prakash, P.S. Sarai Rohilla

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

O R D E R

% 05.09.2024 CRL.M.A. 26810/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 15/2024 1.

An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of petitioner for directing respondent No.2/DCP, North District, New Delhi to ensure safety of life and property of the petitioner.

2.

Issue notice. Learned ASC for State/respondents appears on advance notice and accepts notice.

3.

In brief, petitioner claims to be the recorded owner of property measuring 5 bighas 13 biswas in Khewat No.66 Khatauni No.142 in the area of Village Chowkri Mubarakbad, New Rohtak Road, Near Railway Line, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. Further a complaint to DCP alongwith other authorities is stated to have been made by petitioner on 01.04.2021 alleging that some anti-social elements tried to trespass the property with intention to raise W.P.(CRL) 15/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2024 at 12:26:05

illegal construction.

4.

On the other hand, status report has been filed on behalf of State/respondent No.1, which reflects that ownership of aforesaid property is disputed by government agency i.e. DSIIDC which had stopped the work carried out by petitioner. It is further submitted that the dispute as to ownership of property needs to be resolved through civil litigation, in case, petitioner has any grievance against DSIIDC.

5.

Apparently, status report filed on behalf of respondent No.1/State reflects that construction, if any, carried out by petitioner is disputed by DSIIDC claiming to be owners of property. In case, petitioner has any grievance, the same can be adjudicated in civil proceedings between the parties. It is also pertinent to note that DSIIDC has not been impleaded as party in the present petition.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that disputed question of ownership between the parties cannot be adjudicated by way of present petition and need to be adjudicated before civil court.

Petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the rights and contentions of the parties open. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Date already fixed i.e. 25.09.2024, stands cancelled. ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

SEPTEMBER 5, 2024/v W.P.(CRL) 15/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2024 at 12:26:05