* 7 + rN rrrE rrrcp r-^r',* H COURT OF, DELHI AT NEW DELEI w.P.(c) 3616/2008 L4 _ Bru{RATBFTT/sHANaR'RA & oRs. t/ r nrough: Iw. Anoop Kurnar g6i.^_-P.titioners . versus - _---rqr DrtvastavE Advocate. -f, DELMDEVELOPMENT 8 --$:ilffif'ffi';f,ix"";;;;ff:ffiden,s + 1 --'L"qr 4qVOCa _ -\ €. ,/w.n.g1 3sg6/2oro KAII CFIARAN & ORS. Through: None . ..... petitioners versus GNCTD & A]\TR. ]hrough: I Mr. Gov*of;.Yft fandon *ith Respondents ' 51sl1lr Advocates. w.p.(c) 66x/2070 OMP&{i{SHPOPLI & ORS. rnrough: None. ..... Petitioners versus GNCTD & A}VR. #:lfr\1fi;.y,*, randon *;,h Respondents tfir, Advocates. TICE S. MURALIDI{AR /.,/v 9 + r3 % #*# l. This is the secn,",.r _^ . second round of litigation concen. on 22na Jury and 17th Au,urt zo,in ^:;-'**ng demorition carried our Andheria Mod ,rrrro*^::*"' 2ooo of the Petiitioners' shops located at wp Eivirl 1y*. ,rrrr::t' Mefu'apli, New Derhi. '08, 35g6 and 66?f. of 2oX0 page L of 6 I I I l ! I l I I / Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and he digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified -t\, (' { 2. The Petitioners obviously were encroachers on land belonging W" Gram Sabha. The petition itself states that in June lgg2the Petitioners and other shopkeepers in Andheria Mod Market were issued show cause notices under Section 36 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 read with Rule 47-A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1966 ('DLRA') for vacating the premises under their occupation. It is stated that thereafter two separate orders were passed by the Director (Panchayat) on 12th January 1993 for 32 and 45 shopkeepers respectively. The initiation of proceedings for the ejectment under Section 86 A of the DLRA and other relevant provisions were ordered. It is stated that the said proceedings were pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate ('SDM'), Defence colony when the aforementioned demolition action took place on 22"d July and 17tl' August 2000. 3. Aggrieved by the above demolition on 24th August 2000 the Petitioners filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5039 of 2000 in this Qourt. Inter alia, the prayers were for declaration that the act of demolition of the Petitioners' shops were illegal and for a mandamus to either develop the shops of the Petitioners immediately or in the altemative to give the Petitioners an alternative piece of land for their business purposes. The Petitioners also sought compensation for the losses suffered by them. 4. On 4ft March 2}Ozleamed Single Judge of this Couft disposed of the Writ WP (Civil) Nos.3676/2008,3586 and 6623 of 20t0 Page 2 of 6 8., Petition (Civil) No. 5039 of 2000. The operative portion of the said opdler reads as under: "In view of the subsequent development, the reliefs as prayed for in the present writ petition, would not survive for consideration. However, if the alternative allotment is not made in favour of the petitioners, it will be open to the petitioner,to agitate their grievances in accordance with law." -r 5. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 212 of 2007 was thereafter filed by the Petitioners. On l0th January 2007 the said writ petition was dismissed account of the submission made bv counsel for the DDA that another writ petition was pending. Later when the Petitioners realised that no other writ petition is pending, they filed Review Petition No. 92 of 2007. The said Review Petition was disposed of by an order dated 8in February 2008. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "The controversy, thus, which survives is about the legal rights, if any, of the petitioners which have been infringed by the demolition action. In fact, the order dated 4.3.2003 in WP(C) 503912000 gives the right to the petitioners to agitate their grievance in accordance with law if the alternative allotment is not made in their favour..The alternative allotment has neither been made nor is it proposed to be made. Thus, the question which would have to be examined will be as to whether the petitioners have any rights arising on account of demolition action. I am, thqs, of the considered view that as the liberty was granted while passing the order dated 4.3.2003 in WP(C) WP (Civil) Nos. 3676/2008,3s86 and 6623 of 2070 Page 3 of 6 503912000 and as per respondents have decided that no alternative allotment is to be made, the petitioners can raise the grievance about demolition action by filing a substantive writ petition." 6. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed. 7. On21" April 20l0,this Court passed the following order: "1. It appears from the submissions of Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 Director (Panchayat) that proceedings for ejectment under Section 864. of the Delhi Land Reforms Act were pending before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate ('SDM') when the Petitioners' shops were demolished without prior notice. This was purportedly done for the purposes of road widening. Mr. Sharma sought to contend that the action taken for road widening was independent of the ejectment proceedings initiated by the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, one has nothing to do with the other. 2. However, it transpires that the demolition action took place at the behest of the orders issued by the same SDM before whom the ejectment proceedings were pending. This raises serious questions concerning the legality and propriety of the demolition action. 3. The records of the case which was pending before the SDM as well as the records of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi which would show the orders passed for the demolition be produced by the Respondents by the next date of -1I / -'! /r WP (Civil) Nos. 3676/2008, 3586 ond 6623 of 2070 Page 4 of 6 hearing. 4. A copy of this order be delivered to the SDM, Defence Colony, New Delhi within five days. The SDM will depute a senior representative to remain present in Court along with the records on the next date of hearing. 5. List on} th May 20L0." 8. The record has since been produced. It shows that demolition action did 1 not involve the SDM himself. No orders were passed by the SDM which led to the demolition. It appears to have been carried out on the orders of the Lieutenant Governor. r 9. Although the Petitioners were given liberry to raise the plea regarding the illegality of the demolition action, the Petitioners are unable to persuade the Court to hold that the demolition action was illegal. The writ petition itself states that the Petitioners were earlier issued show cause notices and that this was followed by proceedings under Section 864. of' the DLRA. The Petitioners appear to have accepted the position that they are not entitled to any alternative land. The only prayer that remained to be addressed in the writ petition was that of coinpensation. This, however, is predicated on the Petitioners succeeding in showing that the demolition itself was illegal. 10. Considering that the Petitioners had been issued show cause notices, it Page 5 of 6 WP (Civil) Nos. 3676/2008, 3586 and 6623 ol2070 6 I cannot be said that the demolition action was perse illegal. The Petitionerl/' / have been unable to show that they have any right, title or interest in the properfy in question. 1 1. As regards the plea of compensation, since it has not been possible to hold that the demolition was illegal and without prior notice to the Petitioner, the question of payment of compensation does not arise. -ti Secondly, the pleadings are wholly inadequate to lead the Court to arrive at any definite conclusion in this regard. 12. For all of the aforementioned reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed. $' FEBRUARY 28, 20tl ak Poge 6 of 6 qr \,/ S. MURALIDHAR, J WP (Civil) Nos. 3676/2008, 3586 ottd 6623 of 2070