ANIL TYAGI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not in dispute that the land in question has already been acquired. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in this behalf was passed way back on 13th November, 1959, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18th March, 1966 and the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 12th June, 1969. Inspite thereof, the petitioner is illegally occupying the subject premises, in these circumstances, orders dated 21.11.2011 have been passed by the respondent/DDA calling upon the petitioner to remove his belongings from the said premises i.e. S-530 School Block-II, Shakarpur, Delhi within 15 days from the passing of the order.

(2.) The appellant challenged this order by filing writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine vide impugned order dated 8.12.2011. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, noted that it was the third round of litigation in respect of the same premises. The first writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) 13426-27/2005 was filed by the petitioner and his brother Shri Sanjeev Tyagi. In that writ petition, the grievance was that the MCD was proposing to take demolition and sealing action in respect of this very premises. This writ petition was disposed of on 16.2.2010 on the statement of counsel for the DDA that the land in question had been acquired by the DDA by virtue of an award. This was disputed by the petitioner. While disposing of the petition, direction was given to the petitioner to approach the DDA alongwith necessary documents to satisfy the DDA with regard to their right and status over the land and the DDA was also directed to dispose of such representation within a period of six weeks. The appellant thereafter submitted representation which was considered and order dated 8.4.2011 was passed thereupon by the Assistant Director, DDA stating that the land in question had been acquired, possessed and placed at the disposal of the DDA vide Award No. 07/ 1969. The appellant and his brother were called upon to remove the unauthorized construction. Second writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 8.4.2011 (W.P. 3944/2011). In this writ petition, prayer was made to grant another personal hearing (though one was granted at the time of passing of order dated 8.4.2011 as well) and permission to the appellant and his brother to place on record all the relevant documents before the DDA for it to pass a reasoned order. This request was acceded to and orders dated 1.6.2011 were passed directing the DDA to grant another opportunity. Though in the mean time parties were directed to maintain status quo, consequently, order was also passed to this effect that in case adverse order is passed against the appellant and his brother, the occupants would remove their belongings within a period of two week from the date of passing of the order. The appellant and his brother were called upon to give an undertaking in terms of the said order which they had filed in the Court.

(3.) It is this representation filed by the appellant pursuant to the aforesaid order which had now been dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the DDA. We may record here that the appellant had now raised the contention that even when the land in question had been acquired, the colony in which this land is situated itself was directed to be regularized and it was decided that construction carried out in the said colony up to the year 1977 would also be regularized by the DDA as per the resolution passed by the Ministry of Works and Housing, Government of India. On this premise, the submission of the appellant was that the possession of the premises could not be taken by the DDA as it was protected by the said resolution. In the orders dated 21.11.2011, the DDA specifically dealt with this contention and negatived the same observing that though School Block, Shakarpur Complex, was regularized vide resolution No. 107B, however, the said resolution clearly mentions that any construction including the regularization plan which had come up for land owned by the DDA, MCD and Government of India could not be considered as part of the approved plan and would be deleted. The DDA has also recorded in the said order that the premises in question was a part of facilities and as such is a part of the number of lay out plan available in the record of the DDA and the same was dealt with shown to all the concerned parties in the course of the hearing. This order also records that the appellant had purchased the land in question in the year 1986 as per the documents produced by him which was much after the acquisition of the land and notification which was issued on 16.2.1972 under Section 22(1) of the Delhi Development Act. Taking note of the aforesaid facts the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition observing that there is no force in the contention of the appellant and the order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity therein which would require interference by this Court in judicial review.