The Court dismissed petitions challenging an incorrect statement regarding land ownership. Petitioners claimed possession but failed to substantiate it with evidence beyond photographs, leading to the discharge of the matter with no merit found.
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.
Signature Not Verified Signing Date:18.01.2025 17:29:15 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.
CM No. 4645/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CASfQ 86/2018
W
Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 78/2018 & CM No. 4488/2018 (for stay) CONT.CAS(C) 79/2018 & CM No. 4495/2018 (for stay) CONT.CAS(C) 81/2018 & CM No. 4569/2018 (for stay) CONT.CAS(C) 82/2018 & CM No. 4571/2018 (for stay) CONT.CAS(C) 83/2018 & CM No. 4573/2018 (for stay) CONT.CAS(C) 86/2018
These petitions have been filed by the petitioners alleging, despite the petitioners being in possession, an incorrect statement has been made on January 19, 2018 that the entire land at the western side of the Yamuna Bank has since been made encroachment firep and the same is vacant except in those cases where there are status quo orders operating against the respondents/DDA.
Mr. R. M. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn my attention to page 29 of the paper book which is a photograph (in Cont. Cas. No. 78/2018) to shdw the possession of the petitioners with regardtothe land in question.
He also, by relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court contended that a wrong statement made would attract contempt proceedings.
On a specific query to Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents / DDA, Mr. Bansal states, he still stand by the statement made on January 19, 2018. That apart it is his submission that, mere photographs cannot conclusively prove the possession of the petitioners with regard to the land in question.
On a specific query to Mr.Sinha to show that the petitioners were / are
holdingthe land in questionon January 19, 2018 or thereafter,the answer is in the negative.
In view of above, I do not see any meritin the petitions. Thepetitions and the connected applicationsare dismissed.
y. KAMESWAR RAO, J
FEBRUARY 06,20l8^g
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners were in possession of the land on January 19, 2018 when an incorrect statement was allegedly made.
Whether mere photographs can conclusively prove possession of the land in question.
Whether an incorrect statement made by the authority attracts contempt proceedings in this context.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
judgment of the Supreme CourtReferred¶9
Petitioners
DDA
KAMESWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
