IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI

advertisement
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954
Judgment delivered on: 12th September, 2014
W.P.(C) No.6142/2014
OM PARKASH
Represented by:
..... Petitioner
Mr.V.P.Rana, Advocate.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Yogesh Saini and Mr. Kartik Jindal, Advocates for
Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) No.6142/2014
1.
Notice issued.
2.
Mr. Yogesh Saini, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents.
3.
Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions to set aside the
impugned order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the respondent No.3/BDO in
file No. F.BDO (N/W)/2014-15/1287.
4.
Also seeks directions against the respondents not to take possession of
the land comprising in Khasra No.39/6 (4-16), situated in the revenue estate
of Village Budhanpur Majra, Delhi, without following due process of law as
provided under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred
as ‘the Act’) till decision of the case under Section 85 of the Act pending
before the Revenue Assistant/respondent No.5.
5.
The present petition is second round of litigation.
6.
Vide order dated 11.07.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.4225/2014, this
Court directed the respondent No.3/BDO to decide the representation of the
petitioner within four weeks from the receipt of the copy of the aforesaid
order.
7.
Fact remains that proceedings under Section 85 of the Act are pending
before the Revenue Assistant, i.e., respondent No.5, however, respondent No.
3/BDO rejected the representation of the petitioner by recording that the
applicant had appeared but failed to produce the copy of stay order of the
Civil Court. The matter has also been discussed in DTF meeting under the
Chairmanship of the District Magistrate (N/W), wherein clarified by revenue
officials that the claim of the applicant/petitioner is false. The said land
belongs to Gram Sabha. There is no stay granted by other court.
8.
As per the procedure laid down in The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954,
primarily petition under Section 85 of the Act shall be decided by the
Revenue Assistant and against the order passed by the said Authority, the
appeal lies with the District Magistrate/Commissioner.
9.
Therefore, observations made by the respondent No.3/BDO in its
order dated 14.08.2014 that case of the petitioner is false is without
jurisdiction whereas the petition under Section 85 of the Act is still not
disposed of by the respondent No.5/Revenue Assistant.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I hereby set aside the impugned
order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the respondent No.3/BDO.
11. Consequently, petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property
mentioned above till disposal of the petition under Section 85 of the Act
pending before the respondent No.5.
12.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
13. A copy of this order shall be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties under the signature of the Court Master.
CM No. 14887/2014 (for stay)
With the disposal of the writ petition, the instant application has become
infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
Download
Related flashcards
Business law

29 Cards

Create flashcards