High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/3872/2017

Anand Puri Govind Garh Residential Welfare Association v. Delhi Development Authority And ORS

2017-05-04Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan2 pages

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3872/2017 & C.M.No.17079/2017 ANAND PURI GOVIND GARH RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ` ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner Through M.J.P.S.Sirohi with Mr.Sunil Sirohi, Advocates.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr.Hem Kumar, Advocate.

Mr.Manoj K.Sharma, Advocate for R3.

Ms.Aayushi Gupta, Advocate for R-4 with Inspector J.K.Bhardwaj, TI, and SI Mohit Malik, PS Prasad Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

O R D E R

% 04.05.2017 Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent No.1-DDA to carry out a survey of the land owned by respondent No.5-school in order to ascertain how much land has been illegally encroached upon by the said school. It has been averred in the petition that on the basis of recommendation of respondent No.2, respondent No. 1 allotted 1.5 acres of land to respondent No.5-school. However, the respondent No.5-school is stated to have illegally encroached upon adjacent vacant public land admeasuring 4 acres and is allegedly using the same for the purposes of parking.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite making several representations, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have not taken any action against the said encroachment and the same is causing inconvenience to the residents of the area.

A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner's representation dated 20th February, 2017 has not been disposed of by respondent No.1.

Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 20th February, 2017 in accordance with law. Respondent no.1 shall pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner as well as respondent no.5-school. This Court, however, clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

MANMOHAN, J MAY 04, 2017 KA