Allowed

Suresh Chand Goel & Sons (Huf) & Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Oct 2019LPA/590/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against denial of stay on construction of a compound wall on disputed land. Court held that with mutated entries in favor of appellants, no construction is allowed. Status quo maintained regarding ownership, possession, and construction activities.

What did the court decide?

Parties directed to maintain status quo regarding ownership, possession, and construction; no construction activity (including compound wall) permitted without single judge permission.

Suresh Chand Goel & Sons (Huf) & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of… — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~14

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 10^th October, 2019

¶4

- LPA 590/2019 and CM No. 40791/2019

¶5

SURESH CHAND GOEL & SONS (HUF) & ANR..... Appellants Through: Mr. B.K. Sood, Mr. V.P. Rana and Mr. Karan Singh, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for R-1 and 2 Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Standing Counsel-DUSIB with Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for respondent no.5

¶8

Ms. Shefali Vohra, Adv. for R-3/SDM Model Town

¶9

Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel-North DMC/R-4 with Ms. Swagata Bhuyan, Ms. Shiva Pandey and Ms. Khushboo Nahar, Advs.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

O R D E R

10.10.2019

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

¶16

LPA 590/2019

¶17

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners against an order dated 30^th August, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in CM No. 39033/2019 in W.P.(C) 9479/2019, whereby stay was denied to the appellants herein. The appellants are claiming to be owner in possession of the property in question. No land acquisition proceeding is pending as on today, even then the respondent Nos.4 and 5

¶18

LPA 590/2019

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

are constructing compound wall upon the land of the appellants, hence stay application was preferred but no stay has been granted by the learned Single Judge and the respondents are going ahead with the construction of the compound wall, therefore, the present appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners.

¶21

2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the land in question is situated at khasra no. 79 Min (3-3), 80 Min (1-4) situated at Village Bhalswa, Tehsil Model Town, Jahangirpur, District North-West Delhi.

¶22

3. It further appears from the facts of the case that earlier land acquisition proceedings were initiated and an award was passed on 12^th March, 2001 by the respondents. The said award dated 12^th March, 2001 was challenged by the appellants by preferring WP(C) No. 7297/2004. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 9^th March, 2015 by quashing the award dated 12^th March, 2001.

¶23

4. A Special Leave Petition was preferred by the state authorities against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 9^th March, 2015 passed in W.P.(C) 7297/2004. The said SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27^th February, 2015.

¶24

5. It appears from the facts of the case that after the dismissal of the aforesaid SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, these appellants (original petitioners) preferred an application before the Revenue Authority for restoration of the mutation entry in their name and as on today there is a restoration of the mutation entry in the name of these appellants in respect of land in question.

¶25

6. Thus, it appears that as on today, land bearing khasra no. 79 Min (3-3) land bearing khasra no. 80 Min (1-4) of Village Bhalswa, Tehsil

¶26

LPA 590/2019

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

Model Town, Jahangirpur, District North-West Delhi is in the name of these appellants.

¶29

7. In spite of the fact that Award dated 12^th March, 2001 has been set aside by this Court vide judgment and order dated 9^th March, 2015 passed in W.P.(C) 7297/2004 and SLP against the aforesaid order dated 9^th March, 2015 also stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27^th February, 2015, it appears that the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 still want to construct the compound wall upon the aforesaid property which is prima facie owned and in possession of these appellants.

¶30

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, these appellants have preferred W.P.(C) 9479/2019 alongwith stay application being CM No. 39033/2019 in which learned Single Judge has issued notice. Now the next date of hearing in W.P.(C) 9479/2019 is 9^th December, 2019. However, stay has not been granted by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners.

¶31

9. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears as follows :

¶32

(a) As on today, the land in question is mutated in the name of the present appellants and the revenue entries are in favour of these appellants and thus no construction can be allowed.

¶33

(b) As on today, no land acquisition proceedings are pending qua the land in question.

LPA 590/2019

Page 3 of 5

(d) These appellants are also claiming to be in possession of the property in question since 1998 onwards.

¶38

(e) Looking to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 4014/1998 dated 31^st May, 2002, as well as the order passed in W.P.(C) 7297/2004 dated 9^th March, 2015 and also looking to the fact that the SLP preferred by the Government authorities is being rejected vide order dated 27^th February, 2015, there is a prima facie case in favour of these appellants.

¶39

(f) Thus, it appears that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 want to construct the compound wall upon the aforesaid property which is prima facie owned and in possession of these appellants. Hence, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the ownership and possession of the property in question as well as with regard to construction activity.

¶40

10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this appeal is not tenable in law, because W.P.(C) 9479/2019 alongwith stay application being CM No. 39033/2019 is still pending before the learned Single Judge.

¶41

11. We are not in agreement with the contention raised by counsel for the respondents mainly for the reason that when the ownership and possession of the property is in dispute, no construction can be allowed. Moreover, W.P.(C) 4014/1998 and in W.P.(C) 7297/2014 have been decided in favour of these appellants. The SLP preferred by the state has been dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 27^th February, 2019. Furthermore, the revenue entries are in favour of these appellants. Hence, no construction of the compound wall should be carried out by the respondent Nos.4 & 5. The aforesaid facts make the present case different from the decision upon which reliance is placed by

¶42

LPA 590/2019

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

counsel for the respondents which is reported in (2005) SCCOnline Del 57 Sahil Singh Maniktala & Ors. v. Harpreet Singh & Ors.

¶45

12. In view of the above facts, we direct the parties to maintain the status quo with regard to the ownership, possession and construction of the property in question. We also direct parties to this litigation not to do any construction activity, neither any superstructure nor even of a compound wall and if construction is grossly required by either of the parties, in such eventuality, an application shall be preferred in the pending writ petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 9479/2019 and only with the permission of the learned Single Judge, the construction can be carried out.

¶46

13. As the writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge, we are not much analyzing the facts of the case. Suffice would it be to state that WP(C) No.9479/2019 shall be decided by the learned Single Judge on its own merits without being influenced by the order passed today by this court in this LPA.

¶47

14. With these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of.

¶48

C.M.No.40791/2019

¶49

1. In view of the disposal of the appeal, this application also stands disposed of.

¶50

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶51

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶52

OCTOBER 10, 2019/ kr

¶53

LPA 590/2019

¶54

Page 5 of 5

Suresh Chand Goel & Sons (Huf) & Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chand Goel & Sons (Huf) & Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Trusine Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and Anr.

Vidhanshi Kamalia & Anr. Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Dr. Pentapati Pulla Rao Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bindia Chhabra Vs South Delhi Municipalcorporation

Center of Applied Politics Vs Govt of India & Anr.

Ram Prakash Mittal & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.