Dismissed

Devi Prasad v. Ndmc and Ors.

Delhi HC2 Jan 2018W.P.(C)/10998/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking transfer of a tehzadari site as the matter was not pressed. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Joint Director of Estate to verify documents and grant a hearing, with liberty to approach the court again.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach the Joint Director of Estate for verification and hearing; liberty to approach this court again if necessary.

Devi Prasad Vs Ndmc and Ors. — Delhi HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 10998/2017

¶4

DEVI PRASAD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Kamlesh K.Mishra and Mr.Sanjay Baniwal, Advts.

¶5

versus

¶6

NDMC AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Tarunvir Singh Khehar, Standing counsel for NDMC with Ms.Guneet Khehar, Adv. Ms.Manika Tripathi Pandey and Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advts. for R-2 and R-3.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

¶9

O R D E R % 02.01.2018

¶10

The limited prayer made in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to direct transfer of the tehbazari site in the name of the petitioner upon the demise of his mother, namely, late Smt.Shyama Devi, who was allottee of the tehbazari site at opposite B gate of the Supreme Court and Near College of Art, Tilak Marg, New Delhi.

¶11

Mr.Khehar, Counsel for the NDMC has appeared on an advance copy and stated that on account of a dispute between the legal heirs of late Smt.Shyamo Devi, the NDMC is unable to consider the request of the petitioner for transfer of the tehbazari site in the name of the petitioner. In support of this contention, counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the short affidavit which has been filed by the NDMC. As per the affidavit, the petitioner and one Devender are claiming right over the aforestated tehbazari site. Counsel for NDMC further

¶12

submits that the NDMC is not competent to decide the question as to who is the legal heir and hence, no order has been passed till date on the request of the petitioner.

¶13

Mr.Khehar, counsel for the NDMC also submits that in case dispute between the petitioner and one Devender does not get resolved within 90 days from today, the NDMC would take possession of the kiosk after following due process of law.

¶14

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press this petition to enable the petitioner to approach Mr.P.P.Sharma, the Joint Director, Estate tomorrow i.e. on 03.01.2018 at 11.30 a.m. However, he seeks liberty to approach this Court again if necessity so arises.

¶15

Accordingly, in view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. In case, the time and date is not suitable to Mr.P.P.Sharma, another date and time would be fixed within a period not later than two weeks from today. Mr.P.P.Sharma, after granting a hearing to the petitioner and verifying the documents in his possession, would pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶16

Copy of the order be given dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶17

G.S.SISTANI, J

¶18

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

¶19

JANUARY 02, 2018 rb /

Devi Prasad v. Ndmc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Prasad v. Ndmc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India through Officer in Charge and Its General Manager (T) Mr. K. v

Vijender Singh Vs Edmc and Anr.

Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Prashant Pranav and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Subhash Chander Khatri & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ct/Gd Mahadev Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rohit Deshpande Vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Anr.

Hawa Valves a Company Registered and Incorporated & Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ram Kawal & Ors.

Mohmad Rabani Vs Peer Khan & Ors.

Amar Jyoti Vs Peer Khan and Ors.

Chaman Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Ors. Vs UOI and Ors.