1 t{ % 09.08.20r.o Present:- Mr. Hameed. S. Shaikh for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Chandra for respondent No. 1/ DDA.. + C.M. No. 1O534/201O (Exemption) in W.P.(C.) No. 5345120LO * Exemption from filing of ceftified copies of Annexures as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C.) No. 5345/2O1O & C.M. No. 1O533/2O1O (for stay) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking directions against the respondents/ DDA to deseal his premises No. 4-352, Amar Puri, Nabi Karim Pahar Gang, Delhi-l10055 and to quash the impugned order of respondent No. 1 dated 15,03.2010. The petitioner has also prayed for directions to the respondents to pay him compensation of Rs. One lac for illegal sealing of his aforementioned propefty. Admission arguments have been heard. The impugned order dated 15.03.2010 is Annexure-A at pages 20-21,A of the paper book. The property in question is shown to be situated in Muslim Grave Yard at Khasra No. ]'54 which is approximately II84 square yards and was declared as propefty of Delhi Wakf Board vide notification dated 08.09.1977. The petitioner claims himself to be in possession of the property in question for last 50 years. The said property was sealed by respondent No. 1 on 22.09.2008 and is lying sealed since then till W.P.(C.) No. 5345/2O7O Page L of 4 ia g 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 5 date. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6961.12009 for identical relief for desealing of his property in question and his said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated L2.IL.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the DDA for establishing his legal rights in respect of the property in question. Pursuant to the said liberty granted to him, he is stated to had made a representation dated 24.II.2009 to the DDA and his said representation was rejected by respondent No. 1 DDA vide its impugned order dated 15.03.2010. I have gone through the impugned order and also the grounds of challenge contained in the present writ petition. On going through the same, I find that the DDA has given cogent reasons justifying sealing of the property in question and those reasons given by the DDA in its impugned communication have not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. What is impoftant to notice is that the petitioner claims himself to be in possession of the property in question for last 50 years whereas even according to his own showing, he is alleged to had purchased the said property from one Mr. Prem Prakash vide agreement to sell, GPA, etc on 15.03.1992. ln case the petitioner was in possession of the property for last 50 years then where was the need for him to purchase the said property vide unregistered documents in the form of agreement to sell, GPA, etc in 1992. W.P.(c.) No.5345/2OLO a Page 2 of 4 a The competent authority of the DDA in its impugned order dated 15,03.2010 has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner is neither a lessee nor a damaged assessee. lt is also mentioned in the impugned order dated 15.03.2010 that the property in question was assessed for damages in the name of Mr. sona s/o Kanshi since 01.01.l-952 and demand was raised from him up to 31.03'1969. lt is mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner is a mere encroacher on Government land and cannot be allowed to perpetuate his encroachment. The petitioner could not establish his legal right in respect of the property in question though opportunity was given to him for the said purpose before the competent authority of the DDA, The documents of title sought to be relied upon by the petitioner are unregistered documents and do not create any right in the said property in his favour. The petitioner appears to be a rank tress-passer and has not been able to show violation of any of his legal rights for the enforcement of which the present writ Petition is filed. Mr. Hameed. S, Shaikh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Krishan Ram Mahale Vs. Mrs. Shohha Venkat Roa repofted as lT L989(9) sc 489 to contend that even a tress-passer cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. ln the opinion of this Court, this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no a W.P.(c.) No.5345/2o7O Page 3 of 4 n (a*\ '\y application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. What was held by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is that if a person is in settled possession of property, he should not be dispossessed from the said property even if he is presumed to be a tress-passer. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to show that he was in settled possession of the property in question, He claims his possession over the said property for last 50 years whereas he himself says that he had purchased the property in 1992. This contradiction in the stand of the petitioner goes to the root of the matter and does not entitle him to any protection by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. e AUGUST 09, 20t O 'a' w.P.(c.) No.5345/2oLo V*r*."'t,.L s.N.AdGARWAL, J Page 4 of 4