SHIV MANDIR COMMITTEE REGD Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for directions to the respondents not to demolish the temples, Shiv Mandir and Balmiki Mandir situated at P & Q Block, Mangolpuri and 21 shops built up in the same Mandir complex.

(2.) IT is relevant to note that this is the third round of litigation initiated by the petitioners based on the same grievance. In the first petition filed by the petitioners, registered as W.P.(C) 2481/2011 entitled Umesh Gambhir & Ors. vs. DDA & Anr, the petitioners sought similar directions against respondent No.2/MCD for restraining it from demolishing the shops owned by ?Shiv Mandir Committee? and ?Balmiki Mandir Committee? situated at P & Q Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi. After examining the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2/MCD in the aforesaid writ petition, wherein it was stated that the subject land was transferred by the respondent No.1/DDA to respondent No.2/MCD in the year 1988 and that the temples and the shops are encroachment on government land and further, after recording the statement of the counsel for respondent No.1/DDA therein to the effect that no allotment of the subject land was ever made by DDA to any private party, including the purported ?Shiv Mandir Committee? and ?Balmiki Mandir Committee? as alleged by the petitioners, this Court concluded that the petitioners had not been able to demonstrate that either of the two committees had any legal title on the subject land, which remained government land. While dismissing the writ petition in limine, the respondent/MCD was directed to remove the encroachment existing on the public land in a time bound manner.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated 28.07.2011 emanating from the office of respondent No.3/DUSIB to contend that the subject land is owned by respondent No.3/DUSIB and the petitioners are in negotiation with respondent No.3 for allocation/regularization of the shops in their favour. The said submission is however denied by the counsel for respondent No.3/DUSIB, who states that the subject land is owned by respondent No.2/MCD and that as far as the letter dated 28.07.2011 is concerned, it was only a reply forwarded by respondent No.3/DUSIB to the Treasurer of the Shiv Mandir Committee in response to their letter dated 25.07.2011, wherein they were requested to submit a copy of the letter dated 02.07.1981 as mentioned in their letter dated 25.07.2011. He further states that a bare perusal of the aforesaid reply sent by respondent No.3/DUSIB reveals that an amount of `80,000/- stated to have been deposited by Shiv Mandir Committee was in respect of institutional allocation of land and not in respect of the subject shops and hence, no vested right can be claimed by the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid reply dated 28.07.2011. The aforesaid submission made by counsel for respondent No.3/DUSIB is borne out from a perusal of the reply dated 28.07.2011 addressed by respondent No.3/DUSIB to the Treasurer of the Shiv Mandir Committee (Annexure P-9). Apart from the aforesaid letter, there is no other document on which reliance is placed by the petitioners to fortify their claim that the subject land is not a government land or that it is not owned by respondent No.2/MCD, but vests in respondent No.3/DUSIB.