In a writ petition challenging demolition of a boundary wall, the respondent clarified the raid affected different land parcels (96/70 and 96/76) than the petitioner's (96/71). The petitioner, satisfied by this, withdrew the petition. The matter was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~4
..... Petitioner Through Mr.Shimpy Arman Sharma, Advocate.
versus
S.D.M., (NARELA)
..... Respondent Through Mr.Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD/R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR O R D E R
% 05.09.2016
Demarcation report has been taken on record.
Copy of the same has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The averments in the writ petition disclose that the petitioner had purchased certain land along with one Ravi Prakash in the year 1985 which was forming part of Khasra No.96/71 measuring 1050 sq. Yards. Contention is that on 15.02.2013 the respondent authorities carried out demolition of his boundary wall without notice and in the absence of the petitioner. On verbal query he was informed that further demolition programme was fixed for 20.02.2013. Contention is that SDM has no authority to order for demolition of the property which is a part of Khasra No.96/71 forming a part of the extended laldora of Village Holambi Kalan, Delhi and that to without any information or notice to the petitioner.
Prayer in the writ petition was that the respondent be restrained from demolishing and dispossessing the petitioner from his aforenoted property.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. His vehement contention is that. As per the demolition order, the demolition programme was fixed for 15.02.2013. The encroachment of gaon sabha land was to be removed which was falling in Khasra no.96/70 and Khasra No. 96/76. Copy of the demolition proceedings which were carried on that date has in fact been placed on record and the same are annexed to the affidavit of the respondent. This affidavit and the proceedings show that the demolition programme for removal of the unauthorized and illegal encroachment was qua Khasra No.96/70 and Khasra No.96/76. The land of the petitioner falls in Khasra No.96/71; that land remained untouched.
In view of this stand adopted by the respondent which has come on the affidavit of the respondent petitioner is not pressing his petition any further.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
SEPTEMBER 05, 2016 ndn
Sushil Kumar
S.D.M., (NARELA)
Indermeet Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
