Hoti Lal @ Pappu v. Gnct Of Delhi & ORS

$~21 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 3626/2016 HOTI LAL @ PAPPU ..... Petitioner Through :Mr. Tom Joseph, Mr. Antony M.P.

and Mr. Robin Saeob, Advs.

versus GNCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through :Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with ASI Dinesh Tyagi, P.S. Pandav Nagar for the State Respondent no. 3 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 11.07.2017 Near flat no. 125-A, Pocket - IV, Mayur Vihar Phase - I, Delhi, petitioner had put a temporary hutment. Vide order dated 28th December, 2015 passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C., SDM, Mayur Vihar ordered for removal of encroachment.

The factum of encroachment was brought to notice of the SDM by the respondent no. 2 Mrs. Manjit Kaur Sarna. Petitioner filed a revision petition before the District and Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, which has been dismissed, vide order dated 8th July, 2016 and the same has been impugned by this petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Learned District and Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition being barred by limitation and also on merits.

I do not find the impugned order to be perverse, which may require interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner did not show and/or produce any material before the SDM or before the Revisional Court regarding his title over the land on which temporary hutment existed.

Petitioner has no legal rights over the space from where he was carrying on his work of ironing of clothes. He had encroached the public land/space. Accordingly, SDM has rightly ordered for remoal of encroachment. It is noted that encroachment has already been removed.

Petition is dismissed.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

JULY 11, 2017 rb