DALJIT SINGH DALAL DEAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed some time in May, 1993 by the original petitioner Daljit Singh Dalal in person. It is said that this petition is in public interest. The original petitioner died soon after the filing of the petition. The son of the original petitioner, Bajrang Singh (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), has argued the present petition as a party in person.

(2.) Although the petitioner Bajrang Singh claims to be a lawyer, the petitioner does not set out either the facts or the contentions very clearly. Apparently, the disputed premises belonging to the original petitioner and his family members consist of Premises Nos. 2505, 2506 and 2670, Basti Punjabian, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. According to the petitioner, on 13th May, 1993, portions of House No. 2670 were demolished by the Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioner his father, (that is to say the original petitioner), his daughter, daughter-in-law and her three small children were trapped on the second floor of that house. Four storeys of that house were demolished on 13th May, 1993. The present petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court on that day and obtained an order for the rescue of his family members who were trapped. These members were rescued on 14th of May, 1993. The original petitioner was in a coma and was taken to hospital. After some days he died.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the demolition was a mala fide act on the part of the Municipal Corporation at the instigation of the fourth respondent who did not like the activities of the petitioner and his father in giving shelter to the widows of sikhs killed in the Delhi riots. The petitioner has claimed in the petition compensation for the harassment caused to the family members and has prayed for a direction for rebuilding a Satnami Temple which, apparently, was established in the demolished building. He has also asked for payment of full compensation to himself. At the hearing, however, the petitioner said that he would not desire any compensation and he wanted action to be taken against the respondents.