High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/4120/2018

Sh. Kuldeep Chikkara And ANR. v. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And ORS.

2018-04-24Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Rekha Palli2 pages

$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4120/2018 SH. KULDEEP CHIKKARA AND ANR.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.V.P. Rana, Adv.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Rishikesh Kumar, ASC with Mr.Premsagar Pal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 24.04.2018 Vide the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the Halka Patwari and Kanungo of Village Tatesar at Kanjhawala, Delhi to record the physical possession of the land in Khasra Nos.39/25(4-16), 39/21(4-16), 40/22 (4-16), 40/22 (4-16), 41/2 (1-13), 41/9 (4-16), 41/10 (4-16), 41/12 (6-5) at Village Tatesar, in the name of the petitioners in compliance of Rules 54 and 63 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, despite his various representations, the respondents are not carrying out their statutory duties and no action has been taken to make the relevant entries in the revenue record. He draws my attention to order dated 27.11.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8435/2008, wherein the authorities were directed to carry out an inspection of the

aforementioned properties and record the correct position with regard to the possession of the same within a period of three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Halka Patwari, the petitioner had even approached the SDM vide letter dated 29.12.2015, which also remains unanswered.

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that there is a superior authority under the Scheme of the Act, whom the petitioner can approach in case of inaction on the part of the Halka Patwari as well as Kanungo. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the appropriate revenue authorities. He, however, submits that the said authorities be directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner's representation in a time bound manner. Keeping in view the limited grievance raised by the petitioner, while granting leave to the petitioner to withdraw the present petition, this Court hopes that the respondents would perform their statutory duties in an expeditious manner.

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Needless to say that, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved, it will be open for him to take legal recourse as permissible under law. REKHA PALLI, J APRIL 24, 2018 gm