Dismissed

Rashtriya Prigya Drishti Sansthan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC9 May 2016W.P.(C)/3975/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a provisional regularisation certificate. Relying on a prior coordinate bench decision, the court held that such certificates have no legal sanctity, confer no title, and are not a condition for regularization as per the 2008 regulations.

What did the court decide?

Provisional regularisation certificate and writ petition dismissed, confirming that such certificates have no legal consequence.

Rashtriya Prigya Drishti Sansthan Vs Govt. of NCT… — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶4

W.P.(C) 3975/2016 & CM APPL. 16778/2016

¶5

RASHTRIYA PRIGYA DRISHTI SANSTHAN ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Kirti Kumar, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC for R-1. Mr. Rajan Sabharweal, Standing Counsel for R-2/North DMC.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶9

O R D E R % 09.05.2016

¶10

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23^rd December, 2011 whereby the provisional regularisation certificate in respect of Louis Braille Vihar Colony, Madan Pur Dabas, P.O. Rani Khera, New Delhi was cancelled.

¶11

A perusal of the paper book reveals that the same impugned order with regard to the petitioner’s Colony has been upheld by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 4^th August, 2014 passed in W.P.(C) 8567/2010.

¶12

Even this Court in Sh. Atul Singh Gandas & Another Vs. Lt. Governor of GNCTD and Others, W.P.(C) 3386/2011 decided on 17^th April, 2014 has as under:-

¶13

“7. Ms. Zubeda Begum, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that as per Regulations for Regularisation of Unauthorised Colonies existing in Delhi notified on 24^th March, 2008 by Government of India, there is no provision for provisionally regularising any unauthorised colony. She states that issuance of a provisional regularisation certificate does not regularise any unauthorised colony automatically.

¶14

8. She also confirms that no physical verification was conducted by the State before issuing the provisional certificates. She has placed on record an additional affidavit of Mr. Mansoor Usmani, Deputy Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi dated 27^th March, 2014, which reads as under:-

¶15

“Most respectfully it is submitted that the Govt. of India notified the regulations dated 24.03.2008 for regularization of unauthorized colonies existing in Delhi, subject to fulfilment of Provisions laid down in above said regulations. As per regulations dated 24.03.2008 there is no provision for Provisionally Regularizing any unauthorized colony. It was a decision taken by the then Government and Provisional Regularization Certificates (PRC) were issued to the unauthorized colonies on the basis of certain documents submitted by RWAs representing unauthorized colonies and no physical verification was conducted before issuing PRC. The issuance of PRC does not regularize any unauthorized colony automatically. For regularization, unauthorized colony has to satisfy the provisions laid down under regulation dated 24.03.2008 and its subsequent amendments.

¶16

Further the PRC is neither a necessary not a sufficient condition for regularization of unauthorized colony. The clause 4.6.3 of Amendment dated 16.06.2008 states that “However, the final boundaries would be fixed by GNCTD only after completing all requisite formalities including those in clause 3 of regulations dated 24.03.2008.”

¶17

13. In any event, in view of the Government of NCT of Delhi’s admission that provisional regularisation certificate has no legal sanctity and confers neither any legal title nor any legal status, this Court is of the view that it need not quash the illegal and irrelevant

¶18

provisional regularisation certificate issued by respondent-State Government.

¶19

14. However, to avoid any doubts, it is clarified that a provisional regularisation certificate is of no legal consequence and the same would not be considered or recognized by any Court or authority as the same creates no right in favour of the applicants. It is further clarified that no Court/authority shall recognise or pass any order relying upon the provisional regularisation certificate.”

¶20

Keeping in view the aforesaid, present writ petition and pending application are dismissed.

¶21

MANMOHAN, J

¶22

MAY 09, 2016 rn

Rashtriya Prigya Drishti Sansthan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashtriya Prigya Drishti Sansthan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatin Chandok and Ors. Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Kv Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.

M.C.Gupta Vs Ignou & Ors.

M/S.S.K.Metal & Co. Vs Commissioner of Customs & Ors.

Radha Nagpal & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

Dashrath Singh Vs Andhra Bank & Ors.

Alpha Infravision Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shashi Ranjan Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jatin Chandok and Ors. Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Kv Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.

Sumit Kumar Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

R.S. Tokas (Retd.) & Ors. Vs Defence Services Officers Welfare Fund (Dsowf) & Ors.

M/S. Punj Lloyd Aviation Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Gvk Jaipur Kishangarh Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.