Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Suresh Kumar

Delhi HC2 Aug 2018W.P.(C)/7241/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order clarifying that the impugned order does not bar the petitioners from claiming damages for unauthorized occupation under the Public Premises Act, 1971. The petition is dismissed with this clarification to resolve apprehensions about the claim.

What did the court decide?

A copy of the order forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, with clarification regarding claims under the PP Act.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Suresh Kumar — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~17.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7241/2017 & CM No.18266/2018 (u/S 151 CPC).

¶4

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

SURESH KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar and Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 02.08.2018

¶10

This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 31^st July, 2018.

¶11

Ms. Arti Bansal, Advocate today states that it is necessary for the petitioners to pursue this petition inasmuch as if the order impugned stands it may affect the claim of the petitioners against the respondent under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act).

¶12

It is further stated that instructions are awaited from the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development in this regard.

¶13

It is not understandable why the Secretary, Urban Development is not issuing timely instructions to the counsels inspite of repeated newspaper reports of all public officials being required to perform their duties diligently. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development for intimation and for further action.

¶14

As far as the apprehension expressed by the counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the same can be taken care of by clarifying that the order of the District Judge actring as the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the PP W.P.(C) 7241/2017 page 1 of 2

¶15

Act impugned in this petition shall not come in the way of the claim of the petitioners against the respondent for damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the premises and the petitioners shall be entitled to make a claim in accordance with law. Of course, if such claim is made the respondent shall be entitled to take all defences save the defence of the claim for damages being not maintainable owing to the impugned order. Similarly, the respondent shall be entitled to challenge the order under Section 7 of the PP Act if against the respondent in accordance with law and in which challenge also the order impugned in this petition shall not come in the way of the Appellate Officer or this Court assessing the damages in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid clarification, the petition is disposed of.

¶17

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

¶18

AUGUST 02, 2018 ‘pp’..

¶19

page 2 of 2

¶20

W.P.(C) 7241/2017

Union of India and Ors. v. Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Chaitali Vasoo Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs Jyoti Dhamija

Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs Abhishek Rawat

Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs Dhananjay Kumar

M/S Indo Crystal Pvt. Ltd. Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ex. Cadet Abhilash Yadav. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajiv Khanna Vs University of Delhi and Ors.

Jagir Singh Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Dimple Sharma Vs Vipin Sharma

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Amarjit Kaur & Ors.

Sube Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Bhai Ram @ Bhey Ram Vs Union of India & Anr.