* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI9 7 y + W.P.(C) 3616/2008 BHARAT BHUSHAN ARORA & ORS. Petitioners Through: Mr. Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY& ANR Respondents Tlirough: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for R-L Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate for R-2. 8 + W.P.(C) 3586/2010 KALI CHARAN & ORS. Petitioners Through: None. versus GNCTD&ANR. Respondents Through: Mi*. V.K, Tandon with Mr. Govind Rishi, Advocates. -9 + v/^.P.(C)6623/2010 OM PRAKASH POPLI & ORS. Petitioners Through: None. versus GNCTD& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon with Mr. Govind Rishi, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER % 28.02.2011 1. This is the secondround of litigationconcerningdemolitioncarriedout on 22"'^ July and 17^^^ August 2000 of the Petitioners'shops located at Andheria Mod Market, Mehrauli, New Delhi. \NP (Civil)Nos. 3616/2008,3586and6623of2010 Pagelof6 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 2. The Petitionersobviously were encroacherson land belongingto the Gram Sabha. The petition itself states that in June 1992 the Petitioners and other shopkeepersin AndheriaMod Market were issued show cause notices underSection36 of the DelhiPanchayatRaj Act, 1954 read with Rule 47-A ofthe Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1966 ('DLRA')for vacatingthe premises under their occupation.It is statedthat thereaftertwo separateorders were passed by the Director (Panchayat)on 12'^ January 1993 for 32 and 45 shopkeepersrespectively.The initiationof proceedingsfor the ejectment under Section 86 A of the DLRA and other relevant provisions were ordered.It is statedthat the said proceedingswere pendingin the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate ('SDM'), Defence Colony when the aforementioneddemolitionaction took place on 22"'^ July and 17"" August 2000. 3. Aggrievedby the above demolitionon 24^'' August 2000 the Petitioners filed Writ Petition(Civil) No. 5039 of 2000 in this Court. 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 alternative to give the Petitioners an alternativepiece of land for their business purposes. The Petitionersalso soughtcompensationfor thelossessufferedbythem. 4. On 4'*'March2002 learnedSingleJudgeofthis Courtdisposedofthe Writ WP (Civil)Nos. 3616/2008,3586and6623of2010 page2of6 V Petition(Civil) No. 5039 of 2000. The operativeportion of the said/rder 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." 5. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 212 of 2007 was thereafter filed by the Petitioners.On lO'^ January 2007 the said writ petitionwas dismissedon account of the submission made by 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 ReviewPetitionwas disposedof by an order dated 8'^ February2008. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "The controversy,thus, whichsurvivesis about the legal rights^ if any, of the petitioners which have been infringed by the demolitionaction. In fact, the order dated 4.3.2003 in WP(C) 5039/2000 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, thus, of the considered view that as the liberty was granted while passing the order dated 4.3.2003 in WP(C) WP (Civil)Nos. 3616/2008,3586 and 6623of2010 Page3 of6 5039/2000 and as per respondents have decided that nc i 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. On 21^' April2010,this Courtpassedthe followingorder; "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 86A 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 WP(Civil)Nos. 3616/2008, 3586 and 6623of 2010 Page 4 of 6 hearing. 4. A copy of this order be dehvered 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. Liston 24'*'May2010." 8. The record has since been produced. It shows that demolition action did 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. 9. Althoughthe Petitionerswere givenlibertyto raise the plea regardingthe illegalityof the demolitionaction,the Petitionersare unableto persuadethe 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 86A 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 compensation. 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 WP(Civil)Nos. 3616/2008, 3586 and 6623 of 2010 Page 5 of 6 cannotbe said that the demoHtionaction wasperse illegal.The Petitio^?ers have been unable to show that they have any right, title or interest in the property in question. 11. As regards the plea of compensation,since it has not been possibleto hold that the demolition was illegal and without prior notice to the Petitioner, the question of payment of compensation does not arise. Secondly,the pleadings are wholly inadequateto lead the Court to arrive at any definite conclusion in this regard. 12. Forall ofthe aforementionedreasons,thesewritpetitionsare dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ak WP (Civil)Nos. 3616/2008,3586and6623of2010 Page6of6