Smt. Ripu Daman And ANR. v. The Sub Divisional Magistrate

$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10396/2018 & CM 40508/2018 SMT. RIPU DAMAN AND ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Ms. Ellis J.D.Ahuja, Advocate versus THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE .....Respondent Through:

Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adovcate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

O R D E R

% 01.10.2018 Impugned order of 25th April, 2018 simply records as under:- "As per revenue record of supporting documents the applicant is not entitled for mutation in revenue records.

Sd/-25/4 SDM-Kalkaji."

The challenge to impugned order is on the ground that it is not a speaking order.

Upon hearing, I find that the impugned order is not only nonspeaking but it is incoherent. It is accordingly set aside with direction to the concerned SDM to pass a speaking order on petitioners' application (Annexure-B) within a period of eight weeks from today and the fate of the application be made known to petitioners within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioners may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need W.P.(C) 10396/2018

be.

Let the concerned SDM be apprised of this order forthwith, to ensure its compliance.

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.

Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE OCTOBER 01, 2018 v W.P.(C) 10396/2018