Disposed¶24

Om Parkash v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/17479/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Om Parkash v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 17479/2024, Delhi HC, Manoj Jain, J., order dated 13.01.2025. Regularization of plot T-1889, Upper Ridge Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005; DDA; mutation/transfer from original allottee; communication dated 13.09.1996; notices dated 21.12.2020, 17.05.2024, 27.05.2024; Section 7(3) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971; writ of mandamus; representation to be decided per law within 12 weeks; petition disposed of, not decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to Respondent No.2/DDA to consider the regularization request made in the writ petition as a representation and dispose of it in accordance with law, preferably within 12 weeks; exemption application (CM APPL. 74389/2024) allowed subject to all just exceptions. ¶24

Om Parkash Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~119

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 17479/2024 & CM APPL. 74390/2024 OM PARKASH

¶4

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey and Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Prateek Dhir, Mr. Shivam Takiar and Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 13.01.2025

¶11

CM APPL. 74389/2024 (Exemption)

¶12

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

W.P.(C) 17479/2024

¶14

In view of the order dated 18.12.2024, the prayer in the present petition is only restricted to prayer ‘b’ which reads as under:-

¶15

“b. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate Writ in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondent No.2, thereby, directing Respondent No.2 to regularize the suit property bearing No. T-1889, Upper Ridge Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 in favour of the Petitioner;”

¶16

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/DDA submits that one communication dated 13.09.1996 had been sent by them to Mr. Om Parkash (Son of original allottee) for transfer/mutation of plot in question situated at Upper Ridge Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It was also mentioned in the said communication that the claim for regularization was transferred in his favour

¶17

W.P.(C) 17479/2024 1

¶18

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 24/01/2025 at 14:28:48

¶19

and the allotment-cum-demand letter would be issued after submission of the documents already sought by DDA.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/DDA also submits, on instruction, that there was no response from the petitioner all along and now the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regularization pursuant to notices dated 21.12.2020, 17.05.2024 and 27.05.2024 which they had merely sent for removal of unauthorized occupation under Section 7 (3) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner, though refutes the above said contentions, he, at the same time, submits that the respondent No.2 may be requested to consider the contentions made in the present writ petition, seeking regularization of plot in question, as a representation and to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has no objection to the above and submits that they would consider the above said request for regularization in accordance with law.

¶23

She, however, supplements that such consideration may not be construed as if some equity flows in favour of petitioner.

¶24

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/DDA to consider the aspect of regularization as asserted in the writ petition as a representation and to dispose of the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from today.

¶25

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶26

JANUARY 13, 2025/ss

¶27

W.P.(C) 17479/2024 2

¶28

Om Parkash v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Parkash v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Vs Union of India & Anr.

Pardeep Kumar Gulati Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 50 (1), Delhi

Salman Jameel & Ors. Vs Indian Institute of Technology (Iit) & Anr.

Praveen Reehl & Anr. Vs Punjab National Bank, & Ors.

Mahender Kumar Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr.

Kamlesh Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr.

Pragati Defence Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Hyderabad Cable Digital Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Praveen Reehl & Anr. Vs Punjab National Bank, & Ors.

Rambir Singh Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Anr.

Mr. Suraj Kumar Gupta Vs Mrs. Manju

Dinesh Prasad Seth Vs Yadubir Singh Rawat and Anr.

Smt Suman Chadha Vs Smt Rajni Chadha

Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs Yadubir Singh Rawat and Anr.