Disposed

Anju Devi & Ors. v. Union of India through the Secretary & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/11951/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice disposed of writ petitions challenging vacation notices and demolition orders by MCD. Noting that acquisition proceedings had lapsed based on precedent, the Court observed that construction without prior MCD sanction remains unauthorized. Petitions were disposed of with liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal, leaving all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Present petitions and applications stand disposed of with the liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal, MCD. Rights and contentions of all parties are left open.

Anju Devi & Ors. Vs Union of India through the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3, 4, 5 & 7

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 11948/2024 & CM APPL. 49735/2024 NITESH GEMINI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhawanshu Sharma, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ankit Raj, Sr. Panel Counsel with Ms. Rashi Mangal, G.P., Mr. Akash Chandrayan and Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan, Advocates for UOI.

¶6

Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC (Civil), GNCTD with Ms. Gunjan Suyal, Advocate for R-2 & R-5. Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh and Ms. Urvashi, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M. S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu and Miss Mussarat B. Hashmi, Advocates for R-4 & 5.

¶7

¶8

W.P.(C) 11949/2024 & CM APPL. 49740/2024 SANDEEP RANA .....Petitioner

¶9

Through: Mr. Bhawanshu Sharma, Advocate

¶10

versus

¶11

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M. S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu and Miss Mussarat B. Hashmi, Advocates for R-4 & 5. Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh and Ms. Urvashi, Advocates for R-3.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2024 at 12:22:31

¶14

¶15

- W.P.(C) 11951/2024 & CM APPL. 49746/2024

¶16

ANJU DEVI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Bhawanshu Sharma, Advocate

¶17

versus

¶18

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS.

¶19

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with Mr. Raj Kumar Maurya, G.P. and Ms. Krishna Chaitanya, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M. S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu and Miss Mussarat B. Hashmi, Advocates for respondent/DDA. Ms. Chetanya Singh, SC for R-6. Mr. Prashant Manchanda, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Nancy Shah and Ms. Ankita Singh, Advocates for respondent/GNCTD. Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh and Ms. Urvashi, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Prashant Manchanda, ASC for GNCTD alongwith Ms. Nancy Shah, Advocate for R-4.

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) 11716/2024, CM APPL. 48690/2024 & CM APPL. 48691/2024

¶22

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhawanshu Sharma, Advocate

¶23

RAVINDER SINGH

¶24

versus

¶25

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2024 at 12:22:31

¶26

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

03.09.2024

Present petitions have been filed challenging the vacation notices and any consequential demolition orders issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’), which have been unlawfully carried out against the properties of the petitioners at Khasra no.260, Shahbad Daulatpur, near Rohini Sector-25, Delhi.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that lands in question do not belong either to DDA or MCD. In support of his contention, he relies upon the Division Bench’s judgment of this Court in Surrender Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., in W.P. (C) 2849/2015 dated 20^th September, 2016 wherein it has been held as under:

¶33

“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are satisfied that the properties in this writ petition were before this Court in the earlier round a also before the Supreme Court. Even Section 9 notice had been issued to the petitioners in respect of Khasra no.260 min (1-0) subsequent to the Supreme Court decision dated 21.03.2012 in Prahlad Vihar Resident Association and Others v. Union of India and others being Civil Appeal no.3022-3023/2012. As a result, the case of the petitioners is entirely covered by the decision of this Court in Sunil Goel and Others v. The State and Others: 211 (2014 DLT 382 (DB). Consequently, the declaration dated 26.04.2013 under Section 6 of the

¶34

¶35

Land Acquisition Act, 1984 is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. As a result, the notification dated 28.04.1995 being notification No. F.11(17)/91/L&B/LA/6518 issued under Section 4 of the said Act, insofar as the petitioners’ lands are concerned, would be regarded as having lapsed. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that learned counsel for DDA had wrongly stated before this Court on February 19, 2024 that “that though the land has been acquired by DDA, yet its possession has not been handed over to it. He also prays for an adjournment to obtain complete instructions” .

¶37

Per contra , learned counsel for the DDA draws attention of this Court to status report dated 25^th February, 2024 filed by the DDA in W.P. (C) 15624/2022 wherein it has been averred as under:

¶38

“ It is stated that, the acquisition proceedings in terms of the land under reference has lapsed/quashed as enumerated hereinabove and the said land has not been handed over to the answering Respondent till date. That, it being a matter concerning unauthorized construction, it is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which has to take action for the unauthorized construction as per building by-laws and the answering Respondent further states that complete assistance would be provided as and when required.”

¶39

From the aforesaid status report, it is apparent that acquisition proceedings qua the lands owned by the petitioners stand lapsed/quashed.

¶40

However, it is settled law that just because the petitioner is the owner of the property/plot of land, the owner cannot carry out any construction without taking any prior sanction/approval from the MCD.

¶41

In the present cases, neither any approval plan/sanction nor any completion certificate has been placed on record.

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2024 at 12:22:31

¶44

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would like to withdraw the present petitions to approach the Appellate Tribunal, MCD to agitate their grievances.

¶45

With the aforesaid liberty, the present petitions and applications stand disposed of. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶46

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶47

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶48

SEPTEMBER 03, 2024/ ssc

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2024 at 12:22:31

Anju Devi & Ors. v. Union of India through the Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Devi & Ors. v. Union of India through the Secretary & 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

National Power Training Institute Vs Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons With Disability & Ors.

M/S Microsoft India R and D Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -4 & Anr.

Smart Cube India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(2)

W.C Nanda and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M C Mittal Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Ruchika Jain & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Sumat Prasad Jain & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ex Nk Mohan Singh

Vipin Kumar Tyagi Vs Union of India and Anr.

Religare Finvest Limited Vs M/S. Jagdish Ice Factory Private Limited

Aditya Institute of Technology through Its Founder-Cum-Chairman Devendra Gupta Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Achla Dhawan Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ved Prakash Mishra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nitesh Gemini Vs Union of India & Ors.