Dismissed

Hari Singh v. Uday Pratap Singh Vice Chairman D D a ( Delhi Development Uthority)& Anr.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2018CONT.CAS(C)/83/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismissed petitions challenging a statement made by the respondent DDA regarding land at Yamuna Bank. The court found the petitioners failed to prove possession on the relevant date as photographs alone were insufficient evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitions and connected applications dismissed with no merit.

Hari Singh Vs Uday Pratap Singh Vice Chairman D D a (… — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

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.

¶2

CM No. 4645/2018 (for exemption) in CONT. CASfQ 86/2018

¶3

¶4

Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶5

Applications stand disposed of.

¶6

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

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

He also, by relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court contended that a wrong statement made would attract contempt proceedings.

¶10

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.

¶11

On a specific query to Mr.Sinha to show that the petitioners were / are

¶12

holdingthe land in questionon January 19, 2018 or thereafter,the answer is in the negative.

¶13

In view of above, I do not see any meritin the petitions. Thepetitions and the connected applicationsare dismissed.

¶14

y. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶15

FEBRUARY 06,20l8^g

Hari Singh v. Uday Pratap Singh Vice Chairman D D a ( Delhi Development Uthority)& Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Singh v. Uday Pratap Singh Vice Chairman D D a ( Delhi Development Uthority)& Anr.

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

S K Habibur Rehman Vs Prakash Mishra

Suraj Kumar Bhaskar Vs Poonam Suri

Harbhajan Kaur Vs Saumya Gupta & Anr.

Satish Chand Gupta Vs R K Saini & Anr.

Subhash Kwatra Vs J B Singh , IAS & Ors.

Rachit Sahi Vs J B Singh , IAS & Ors.

Shashi Agarwal & Anr. Vs Rakesh Behl & Ors.

Rajender Arya & Anr. Vs Shurbir Singh & Orss

S K Habibur Rehman Vs Prakash Mishra

Tanveer Ali Munshi Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Sh. Yogesh Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Resident Welfare Association Vs Commissioner Edmc & Ors.

Rajender Vs Uday Pratap Singh Vice Chairman D D a ( Delhi Development Uthority)& Anr.

Leelawati(Dead) Thr Lr Vs Uday Pratap Singh Vice Chairman D D a ( Delhi Development Uthority)& Anr.