ANIL TYAGI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the respondent/DDA in respect of the property bearing No. S -530, School Block -II, Shakarpur, Delhi, calling upon the petitioner to remove his belongings from the subject premises within 15 days from the date of passing of the order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as it has not taken into consideration the circular issued in the year 1977 by the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the aforesaid circular, even though the land of the petitioner was acquired vide Award No. 7/1969, in view of the fact that the colony itself was directed to be regularized, it was decided that the construction carried out in the said colony upto the year 1977 would also be regularized by the respondent/DDA as per a Resolution passed by the Ministry of Works and Housing, Govt. of India. In support of the said submission, counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on Annexure P -7, which is stated to be a copy of a pr ‚cis of the resolution passed by UOI, approving the modified layout plan from Shakarpur Complex. It is further stated by counsel that as the petitioner is in possession of the subject property ever since the year 1986, when he had purchased the same, and has remained in uninterrupted possession thereof till date, he is entitled to continue remaining in possession of the subject land.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that this is the third round of litigation in respect of the subject premises. The first round of litigation was initiated by the petitioner and his brother Shri Sanjeev Tyagi by filing a writ petition, registered as W.P. (C) 13426 -27/2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.02.2010. In the said writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner was that the respondent/MCD was proposing to take demolition/sealing action in respect of the subject premises. Notice was issued on the said petition on 05.10.2005. However, in the order passed on 16.02.2010, the statement of the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/DDA was recorded that the land in question had been acquired by the DDA by virtue of an Award passed in respect thereof, which fact was, however, disputed by the petitioner. The said writ petition was finally disposed of with directions issued to the petitioners to approach the respondent/DDA alongwith necessary documents to satisfy the respondent/DDA with regard to their right and status over the land. Further directions were issued to the respondent/DDA to dispose of the representation of the petitioners within a period of six weeks. The said representation of the petitioners was considered by the respondent/DDA and an order dated 08.04.2011 was passed by the Assistant Director (ML), DDA (Annexure P -13), wherein it was observed that the land in question was acquired, possessed and placed at the disposal of the respondent/DDA vide Award No. 07/1969. As a result, the petitioners were called upon to remove the unauthorized construction from the DDA land, failing which, it was directed that the encroachment would be removed at the risk and cost of the petitioners.