Madanvir Singh v. Govt. (Nctof Delhi) And ORS.

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11717/2017 MADANVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha with Mr.

Rakesh Mishra and Ms. Amrita Pandey, Advocates.

versus GOVT. (NCTOF DELHI) AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr.

Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for GNCTD with Mr.

Nitin Jain, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R D E R

% 29.01.2018 1.

The following substantive prayers have been made in the writ petition: - 1.

Quash the impugned Public Notice dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure-P/12) issued by respondent No.3; the same being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(e), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and 2.

Direct the respondents not to interfere with the property of the petitioner situated at Khasra No.278 min (18 Biswa) at Village Saidulajab, New Delhi without following due process of law, subject matter of the suit property being covered by declaratory decree dated 08.02.1962 in Suit No.127/61 passed by the learned SubJudge, 1st Class, Delhi. 2.

Notice in this writ petition was issued on 26.12.2017 whereupon a

counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. It is pertinent to note that on that very date i.e. 26.12.2017, this Court had also directed parties to maintain status quo with respect to possession and construction. 3.

I am informed by Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner that demarcation proceedings are still pending before the concerned Revenue Assistant/ SDM. Learned counsel says that the next date before the Revenue Assistant/ SDM is 20.4.2018. 4.

Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 10.9.2003 passed in CWP No.4205/2002. A perusal of the said order reveals that the concerned Revenue Assistant/ SDM was to carry out demarcation exercise as Gaon Sabha had claimed rights in the subject land. Mr. Aggarwal says that demarcation has been carried out, albeit, on the instructions of Mr. Mauj Pal Singh, Extension Officer. 4.1 It is, however, learned counsel‟s submission that adjudication under Section 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1984 is yet to be concluded. Counsel says that it is these proceedings which are coming up before the Revenue Assistant/ SDM, Saket on 20.4.2018.

5.

Having regard to what has been portrayed before me by the counsels, I am inclined to direct the respondents to conclude the proceedings at the earliest, though, not later than 30.6.2018. Pending disposal of proceedings by the Revenue Assistant/ SDM, the interim order passed by this Court on 26.12.2017 will continue to operate.

6.

Counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the directions issued above, says that he does not wish to press this writ petition any further. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

7.

Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the

concerned Revenue Assistant/ SDM, he will have liberty to assail the resultant order, albeit, in accordance with law. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JANUARY 29, 2018/hs