Allowed

Taponidhi Shri Panchayati Anand Akhada and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC15 May 2018W.P.(C)/5076/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order allowed a writ petition, directing the Land Development Officer to enquire into the petitioners' claim regarding land at Malcha Marg, New Delhi, alleged to be a 350-year-old donation housing a temple, and to issue notices to all concerned persons.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed with direction to Respondent No. 3 (L&DO) to enquire into the matter and communicate the result to the petitioners.

Taponidhi Shri Panchayati Anand Akhada… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5076/2018

¶4

TAPONIDHI SHRI PANCHAYATI ANAND AKHADA AND ANR.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

Through Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

Through Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSSC for UOI/R-1 & R-3. Mr. Jagdeep Kumar Sharma, Adv for NDMC/R-2.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 15.05.2018 C.M. Appl. No.19635/2018

¶14

1 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶15

W.P.(C) 5076/2018

¶16

2 Issue notice.

¶17

2.1 Mr. Gogna accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 3. Likewise, Mr. Jagdeep Kumar accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

¶18

3 For the moment, no notice need be issued to the other respondents. The reason for the same is that the petitioners claim right over a land stated to be situate at Malcha Marg, 22 Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi, in Khasra No. 419. The petitioners claim that the W.P.(C) 5076/2018 Page 1 of 2

¶19

subject property was donated by the villagers to their predecessors-ininterest around 350 years ago. The petitioners claim that a Shiva temple has been built on the subject property. The petitioners’ principal grievance, at the moment, is that though they were assured by the L & DO that the subject property would be inspected, there has been no movement in the matter. For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to a communication dated 23.01.2018, issued by the Dy. L & D Officer to, one, Mr. Rana Dhiraj Singh, who, according to the counsel for the petitioners, is a devotee of the aforementioned temple. 4 In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3/L & DO to enquire into the matter. For this purpose, respondent No.3/L & DO will issue notice to all persons concerned, including those who are likely to be affected by the result of his enquiry. Respondent No.3/L & DO will conclude the enquiry at the earliest. Respondent No.3/L & DO after concluding the enquiry, will communicate the result to the petitioners. 5 Resultantly, pending application shall stand closed.

¶20

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶21

MAY 15, 2018 A W.P.(C) 5076/2018

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Taponidhi Shri Panchayati Anand Akhada and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taponidhi Shri Panchayati Anand Akhada and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Delh Transport Corporation Vs Rakesh Kumar

Bijender Kumar and Ors. Vs Staff Selection Commission

Mukul Talwar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vrinda Grover Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vineet Khosla Vs Ld. Recovery Officer (I), Drt (Iii), & Ors.

Dr Raj Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs G N C T of Delhi & Ors.

Chander Mohan Khanna Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Rajiv Gaur & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Arvind Bhambhi and Anr. Vs the Chairman Future Capital Financial Service Ltd. and Anr.

Aman Trehan Vs Union of India & Anr.

Abhishek Trehan Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ritesh v. Mathankar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunder Lal Jain and Anr. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Kbs Certification Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Accreditation Board for Certification Bodies & Ors.