Dismissed

Bharat Bhushan Arora & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Aug 2011LPA/623/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge judge dismissed an appeal challenging the demolition of unauthorized shops on Gram Sabha land. The court held the appeal frivolous, noting the petitioners had previously abandoned similar petitions without challenging the demolition and sought alternative plots which were not allotted. The petitioners also failed to establish bhoomidari rights by erring in building shops instead o

What did the court decide?

All pending applications were disposed of as infructuous since the appeal was dismissed.

Bharat Bhushan Arora & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.

¶2

We would highlight that as per the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act 1954, a Gram Sabha cannot sell or let out Gram Sabha land without the permission of the Secretary Panchayat.

¶3

There are no pleadings in the writ petition as regards the date when the Gram Sabha passed a resolution authorizing the Pradhan to let out Gram Sabha property. There are no pleadings as to the Secretary Panchayat according concurrence ) to the resolution of the Gram Sabha. Mere pleading that the writ petitioners were paying rent is neither here nor there. It is settled law that pleadings in a writ petition· are pleadings of fact, made good with reference to pleading of evidence followed by pleadings with respect to legal issues which arise.

¶4

With respect to the other pleas sought to be urged, relevant facts to be noted are that the subject lands admittedly vest in the Gram Sabha of village Chatarpur and were found to be encroached upon; requiring expansion of Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, the encroachments were removed firstly on 22nd july, 2000 and the remainder on 17th August, 2000. Undisputably, prior to the encroachments being removed, proceedings were initiated by issuance of notices under Section 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 requiring the writ petitioners to show cause why should they not be ejected from Gaon Sabha land and in response they were taking the plea of bar of limitation for ejectment, being 3 years and were urging that they had become bhoomidars of the land, a plea which negates the stand of being tenants.

¶5

Page 2 of 6

¶6

LPA 623/2011

¶7

In respect of the plea by way of defence that the writ petitioners have become bhoomidars, we would highlight a misconception in Delhi. Under the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 a person in adverse cultivatory possession upon not being ejected from the land by the recorded bhoomidar acquires a bhoomidari right by prescription and the reason of the law is that the tiller of the land must get the possessory rights. Thus, a wrongful possession, which is not a cultivatory possession, would not create any bhoomidari rights. The writ petitioners admit that they were carrying on business by erecting shops on the subject land.

¶8

We may note that the writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning their ejectment being W.P.(C} No.5039/2000 was dismissed on 4th March 2002 when petitioners stated that they have a right to be considered for alternative plots to be allotted and the learned Single Judge held that if alternative plots were not allotted, petitioners could raise a grievance on the said count.

¶9

No alternative plot being allotted, petitioners filed W.P.(C} No.212/2007 which they withdrew by stating that some other writ petition filed by them on the same cause was pending. None being pending, they sought a revival of W.P.(C} No.212/2007. The revival was declined when the learned Single Judge noted that the writ petitioners were once again questioning the demolition of their shops and they being ejected from the subject lands and that they were not raising any

¶10

LPA 623/2011

¶11

Page 3 of 6

¶12

grievance pertaining to alternate plots not being offered to them.

¶13

Thereafter, W.P.(C) No.3616/2008 and two more writ petitions were filed, all of which have been dismissed by the impugned order in which writ petitions we find that the action of the respondents in resuming possession of the land on which unauthorized shops were constructed have been questioned. Compensation has been prayed for. The prayers in the writ petition read as under:-

¶14

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Orders and calling the acts of demolition of petitioners shops as illegal.

¶15

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus in the nature of directing respondents therein, to respond, the violations of Court Orders, committed by them, in "status as to the possession".

¶16

(iii) Issue the writ of mandamus directing therein to the respondents for the removal of illegal construction, built up in violation of the order for "Status quo as to possession" passed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶17

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to stop them for doing their business activity from the land portions where they have been carrying their work till 21.7 .2009, nor do any interference in this regard.

¶18

(v) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take possession of the land portions of the petitioner where their shops were situated till the same were illegally demolished.

¶19

Page 4 of 6

¶20

LPA 623/2011

¶21

(vi) Issue a writ order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, to immediately develop the shops of the petitioners and make it habitable so that petitioners can do their business smoothly.

¶22

¶23

(vii) Issue any order or directions calling upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners for the loss they have suffered due to the illegal act of demolition of their shops on 22.7.2000 and also on 17.8.2000; and

¶24

(viii) Pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the writ to the petitioners."

¶25

Without going into the reasoning of learned Single Judge who has found no prima facie right in favour of the petitioners, suffice would it be to state that the petitioners cannot repetitively question the legality of the demolitions effected in the year 2000. They did not press the first petition filed by them where the demolitions were challenged and remain satisfied of their claims being considered for alternative plots to be allotted. The second writ petition filed by them in which they challenged the demolitions were not permitted to be continued forward inasmuch as it was noted that said cause had been abandoned. For the third time same cause is being predicated.

¶26

On the plea of alternative allotment of a plot, the writ petitioners appear to be obviously not litigating inasmuch as they are conscious of the fact that they are not armed with the requisite documents to justify they being in legal possession, an LPA 623/2011 Page 5 of 6

¶27

¶28

exercise which would be done when the claim committee would scrutinize the claim for allotment of an alternative plot. 12. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned decision and thus dismiss the appeal in limine.

¶29

All pending applications are disposed of as infructuous since the appeal has been dismissed.

¶30

¶31

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, j.

¶32

AUGUST 10, 2011 mm

¶33

LPA 623/2011

¶34

Page 6 of6

Bharat Bhushan Arora & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Bhushan Arora & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Anr. Vs Govind Jha and Anr.

S. Gopinathan Nair Vs UOI & Ors.

Baljinder Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital & Ayurvedic Research Instt Vs Vijender Singh

R.C.Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anil Kumar Rana Vs Uniion of India and Ors.