Petitioner sought injunction to prevent respondent-DA from demolishing premises. Court dismissed petition noting absence of sale deed, sanction plan, or any document showing land was private.
Writ petition and pending application dismissed.
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.
$~23
MOHD SHAREEF ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Saiful Islam, Adv.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan with Ms. Isha Garg, Advs. for DDA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R % 06.10.2016
The present writ petition has been filed restraining the respondent-DDA from demolishing and/or dispossessing the petitioner from the premises.
Neither any sale deed nor any sanction plan has been placed on record. No document has been placed on record to show that the land in question is a private land. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the present writ petition and pending application are dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 06, 2016 NG
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining demolition of premises absent proof of title or public status of land.
Whether lack of sale deed or sanction plan precludes the issuance of relief under writ jurisdiction against DDA.
Whether evidence on record establishes petitioner as owner of private land claimed.
MOHD SHAREEF
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MANMOHAN
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
