JAI PRAKASH & Ors. v. GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI & Ors.

Through: Mr. Danesh Ms.Swcta, Advocates. Respondents Reian CORAM: llON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR % ORDER

this is a petition fled under Section226 of the Constitutionof India. The petitioners by way of the presentpetitionseek direction to direct the respondents not to demolish the dwelling house/structures occupied by them forming part of Khasra No. 1149 situated in Revenue Estate, Village Rajokri, New Delhi. 2, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learnedcounselrepresentingthe petitioners PV.P.(C)No. 3696/2012 page / of4 4 Signature Not Verified Signing Date:19.09.2024 17:09:19 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. y submits that petitioners have been in occupation and possession of the respective plots of land forming Khasra No. 1149 much prior to the enforcement of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. He further submits that the petitioners had raised structures on their respective plots of land and they have been occupying the same for the last several years. It is lurther submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 25^'' May, 2012 the eoneerned Sub-DivisionalMagistrate (SDM) has restrained the petitioners from carrying out any construction on their respective properties without obtaining any sanction/permissionfrom the concerned authorities.

The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that no action by the revenue authorities has so far been initiated against the petitioners in terms of Sections 84 and 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and by virtue of a long uninterrupted possession, the petitioners themselves have become bhoomidars of their respective portions.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners also undertakes that they shall not be raising any Rirther construction in their respective properties/plots.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

W.P.(C)No. 379/2012 was preferred by one Shri Krishan W.P.(C) No. 3696/2012 page 2of4 Yadav, seeking directions against the same very respondents for the removal of unauthorized encroachment on the gram sabha land forming part of Khasra No. 1121/1, 1104, 1121/1, 1147, 1148 and 1149 situated in Village Rajokari was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2"'' February, 2012 on the statement made by learned counselrepresentingthe respondents that the complaint of 29"' March, 2011 of the petitioners shall be considered and dealt with by the respondents in accordance with law withina period of four weeks.

Since no action was taken by the respondents pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, therefore, the petitioners had filed a contempt petition against the respondents vide Cont. Case (C) No.224/2012. Notice in the said contempt petition was directed by this Court on 30"' March, 2012 and the same is now listed before the contemptCourt on 20"' September,2012.

Without expressing any view on the micrits of the claim ol the petitioners, the petitioners are directed to approach the concernedSDM by way of a separate representation. The SDM/Revenue estate is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the present order. Concerned SDM shall decide the representation by passing a speaking order and beforepassinga speakingorderthe SDM is also directed to W.P.(C) No. 3696/2012 ' page 3 of4 accord a personal hearing to the petitioners. Till the pendency of the decision, the concerned SDM is directed not to forcibly dispossess the petitioners from the existing plots or demolish their existing structures. In the event, the representation moved by the petitioners is decided against the petitioners then for another period two weeks no action shall be taken by the concerned authorities to demolish the existing structure or to dispossess the petitioners. It is also directed that the petitioners shall not raise any unauthorized construction on their respective sites till they are legally permitted to do so by the concerned SDM.

With the aforesaid direetions, the present petition and the application for stay are disposed of. DASTI. JUNE 11, 2012 AK KAIEASH GAMBfflR (VACATION JUDGE) W.P. (C) No. 3696/2012