DHARAM PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the decision in CWP No.999/99 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge's order dated 12/01/2000. Petitioners/appellants case in essence is that they are in peaceful possession of certain properties and the respondents have threatened to demolish the properties and in fact nearby areas have been cleared by way of demolition and they apprehend, that such action may be taken in their case. Though counter-affidavit was not filed, with reference to the averments in para 23 of the writ petition, learned Single Judge observed that the land in question had been acquired vide Award No.30/86-87 relating to Village Mahipal Pur, Delhi and the possession had been taken over by the DDA. Learned Single Judge also referred to a copy of the possession report (Kabja Karyawahi) which was placed for consideration and it was noted that pursuant to the award, the possession of the land was taken over on 23.9.1986. It was further stand of the petitioners/appellants that there was a proposal for regularising unauthorised constructions/colonies and that benefit should be given to them. Learned Single Judge noticed that such a stand was not accepted by a Division Bench which dismissed a writ petition containing identical prayers in Ashok Nagar Welfare Association Vs. Union of India (CWP No.1158/96), by order dated 12/07/1999. Accordingly writ petition was dismissed.

(2.) . Stand of the appellants in the present appeal essentially is in reiteration of the stand taken before the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that though the petitioners/appellants accepted that there was an Award No.30/86-87, the same was in the nature of a mere formality and the compensation in terms of the award had not been given. It is also submitted that when the authorities claimed to have taken possession after demolition, the question of authorities taking possession at an earlier date does not arise. Further it is stated that the MCD has been collecting house-tax in respect of constructions and therefore, the possession was admittedly with the appellants. In the reply-affidavit of the respondents several documents have been annexed. One of them is a copy of the Award No.30/86-87 which shows that the appellants themselves were parties to the acquisition proceedings. Furthermore, the possession report (Kabja/Karyawahi), dated 23/09/1986 has also been filed. In the counter-affidavit filed by the MCD though it is accepted that for some period amounts are being collected for about 506 properties as house-tax, that does not in any way contradict the stands of the MCD that the land in question falls under the jurisdiction of the DDA for the purpose of recovery/building activities etc.

(3.) . In view of the aforesaid position, the inevitable conclusion, is that factual disputes are involved about possession, and the award in question has remained un-assailed for more than a decade. But the factual position regarding possession as per DDA and MCD's stand seems to be in line with the award. Mere fact that MCD has been collecting house-tax or the indication about the appellant being in unauthorised possession, would not change the fact situation. The conclusions of learned Single Judge are in order and do not warrant any interference. This appeal being without merit is accordingly dismissed.