The petitioner challenged a letter and sought non-interference in his claimed peaceful possession of land. The High Court found disputed questions of fact regarding possession and refused to exercise writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition.
The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Civil Court.
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.
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBODH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates for respondent No.1 Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Mr. Yeesh Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for Land & Building Department
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
O R D E R % 09.05.2016
the status report which are taken on record.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
MAY 09, 2016 rsk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction is maintainable when disputed questions of fact exist regarding possession of land.
SUBODH SINGH
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
J.R. MIDHA
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
