KHURJI DEVI Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of property No.WZ-110-B, admeasuring 85 sq. yards, in the Colony of Sant Garh, M.B.S. Nagar, New Delhi, an unauthorized regularized colony of Delhi. THE petitioner bases her title on a Sale Deed dated 18 th January, 2008 and further claims that at the time of purchase by her, the aforesaid property was already built up; reliance is also placed on ration card and electricity bills of the earlier occupants of the property. It is further the case of the petitioner that when she after purchase commenced the works of repairs / renovation on the property, objection thereto was taken by the respondent No.4 Sh. J.S. Vohra in occupation of adjoining property and a civil suit was also filed by the respondent No.4 impleading the petitioner and the MCD, to restrain the petitioner from making illegal construction on the property and to command the MCD to take action with respect to the unauthorized construction being raised by the petitioner; it was the case of the respondent No.4 in the said plaint that the said plot of land was municipal land and in the Layout Plan of the locality earmarked for a Health Centre.

(2.) IT is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent MCD and its officials respondent Nos.2 and 3 without any notice to the petitioner and without in any manner verifying the position with respect to the aforesaid property, on 6th February, 2009 suddenly demolished the construction on the said property and fenced the land with a barb wire and put up a sign board thereon proclaiming the same to be belonging to MCD and meant for a Health Center. Upon the representations of the petitioner to the MCD not meeting with any success, the present writ petition was filed for quashing the action taken on 6th February, 2009 of demolition and dispossession of the petitioner from the property / land aforesaid and for restraining the MCD from interfering in any manner with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the said land. Relief of compensation against the MCD was also claimed.

(3.) THE counsels for the parties have been heard. THE counsel for the petitioner with reference to registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner and Sections 198 & 199 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 has contended that once the title to the aforesaid land is shown to have been vested in the petitioner under the Sale Deed aforesaid, the MCD could have taken possession thereof from the petitioner only by acquisition thereof and not forcibly as has been done. It is further contended that though the MCD in its counter affidavit has claimed the land as belonging to it but has not disclosed as to how it became the owner of the property. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 30 th October, 2003 of this Court in C.W.P. No.481/1997 titled Atma Ram Jain Vs. MCD & Ors. contending that this Court in the said judgment in similar facts has held the action of the MCD as illegal and without jurisdiction and restrained the MCD from interfering with the possession of the petitioner therein.