Court closed a writ petition seeking mandamus to prevent demolition of property without hearing. Noting a decision to grant a personal hearing by the SDM, the court held the petition's limited prayer was satisfied and no further orders were needed.
Writ petition closed; all pending applications closed.
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.
$~20
..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Tushant, Advocate.
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent Through Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC with Ms. Shreya Mehta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
b. Pass a writ / order / direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent not to take any action qua the property of the petitioners bearing no.F-335, khasra no.326 village Lado Sarai, New Delhi by demolishing the same, without affording opportunity of being heard;
2 On the previous date i.e. 16.03.2018 notice was issued in the petition and while issuing notice following order was passed:-
“ The petitioners' only apprehension is that coercive measures may be taken against the subject property without hearing them. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that if such a step is taken
then it will be contrary to the order of the Division Bench dated 24.2.2015, passed in LPA No.694/2014.
3. It appears that the petitioners have filed objections with the SDM/RA, Saket, New Delhi. A copy of the objections is appended as Annexure P-8 at page 76 of the paper book.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners says, albeit, based on the revenue record that petitioners are the owners of the property which is located in Khasra No.326, Village Lado Sarai, District Delhi. For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to Annexure P-2 at pages 31 to 34 of the paper book. The petitioners claim that their predecessor in interest is, one, Mr. Risal Singh, son of Mohar Chand.
5. While entries in the revenue record do not establish title, the petitioners may have something to say qua the aspect concerning their right to be heard before any coercive measures are taken qua the subject property.
6. Issue notice. Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
7. Mr. Anupam will revert with instructions.
8. Renotify the matter on 2.5.2018.
9. In case the instructions are received to resist the petition, the counter affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing.
10. Till the next date of hearing, no coercive measure will be taken against the petitioners.
11. Dasti.”
3 Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC who appears on behalf of the respondent has stated that a decision has been taken to grant personal
hearing to the petitioners on 09.05.2018 at 11:00 AM. Copy of the affidavit has been placed before me.
4 Petitioners‟ counsel has also been furnished a copy of the said notice which is dated 01.05.2018.
5 In these circumstances, in my view, nothing survives in the petition as the limited prayer of the petitioners is that they be heard in the matter.
6 In view of the decision taken by the SDM, Saket, no further orders are called for in the petition.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MAY 02, 2018 A
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives as the limited prayer of the petitioners was that they be heard.
Raj Singh & Ors
Govt of NCT of Delhi
Rajiv Shakdher
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
