W.P. (C) No. 3378/2007 Page 1 15. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3378/2007 % Date of decision: 25th February, 2010 BISHAN SINGH SOLANKI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Pawan Kumar Bahl, Advocate. versus GOVT.OF N.C.T. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 1. The petitioner claims that he is a recorded bhumidar of 0.5 biswa of land in khasra No. 67/5/2, village Palam, New Delhi and on the said land there exists a temple. The petitioner relies upon order dated 22nd July, 1998 passed by the Collector (SouthWest), Delhi. The petitioner also submits that there is inter se litigation between the petitioner and his neighbours, which is pending before the revenue court. 2. Counsel for the respondent-MCD, on the other hand, submits that the said land is located in an unauthorized colony, which has been regularized. He also relies upon the lay out plan of the said colony and submits that the so-called temple is part of a public street as shown in the lay out plan. 3. To verify the exact nature of construction and whether there exists any temple, the Court had appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the spot. The Local Commissioner has submitted his report. Local Commissioner has pointed out that at the time of regularization of Sadh Nagar colony in W.P. (C) No. 3378/2007 Page 2 1980, the lay out plan of the area was prepared and as per the lay out plan, this portion is unconstructed and vacant land. 3. However, there appears to be some dispute whether it is a part of gali/street or not. As per the MCD, this is a part of the street as per the lay out plan though this fact is disputed by the petitioner. 4. The photographs placed on record by the Local Commissioner clearly reveal that there is no construction as such and no temple exists at the said spot. Some stones have been kept at the spot and this sought to be projected as a temple. Merely keeping some stones and putting some photographs or even a idol does not justify or support the claim of the petitioner. The Local Commissioner in his report has stated that attempt was made to encroach upon the area in the last four and five years, but no permanent structure exists. The Collector (South West), Delhi while passing order dated 22nd July, 1998 did not examine the lay out plan and take into consideration that an unauthorized colony had already come up and the said colony was regularized as Sadh Nagar colony in 1980. 5. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 25, 2010 VKR