MAHAVIR PRASAD Vs. GOVT OF NCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents no.4 to 7 and the respondent no.3 have filed their counter affidavits. THE counsel for the petitioner states that his rejoinder thereto is ready. THE same has been taken over in the Court. THE counsels have been heard.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to have been allotted land admeasuring 5 Bighas and 13 Biswas in Khasra Nos.393 & 399 of Village-Meethapur, Delhi and further claims to have been declared a Bhumidhar with respect thereto in the year 1978-79; he claims that the said land is adjoining to Khasra Nos.1032, 1033 & 1038 of Village-Molarband; that several private parties (who are not respondents before this Court) have been raising unauthorized construction on the land aforesaid in Village-Molarband and have been attempting to encroach upon his land in Village-Meethapur also; that owing thereto he had to file several suits in the Civil Court in this regard; that proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 were also taken against him and an order of his eviction has been passed with respect to his land in Village-Meethapur and against which order his appeal before the Deputy Commissioner is stated to be still pending; he further claims to have in or about the year 1996 filed a suit against the respondents herein to restrain them from dispossessing him forcibly from the said land and in which suit a statement was given by the Block Development Officer (BDO) to the effect that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed save by due process of law and the said suit was disposed of on 5th October, 2004 in terms of the said statement; he further claims that a part of the land in Village-Molarband adjoining to his land has now been allotted for construction of a hundred bedded Government Hospital and the respondents during the process of construction of the said Hospital, are encroaching upon his land in Village-Meethapur also. On the contention of the petitioner that the demarcation proceedings to demarcate his land from the land on which the Hospital is being constructed remained inconclusive/incomplete, notice of the writ petition was issued.

(3.) COMING back to the counter affidavit of the SDM, it is further pleaded that the petitioner has efficacious remedies available to him before the District Collector if aggrieved from the demarcation done. It is further pleaded that the question of demarcation is also subject matter of the various civil suits which the counsel for the petitioner today also admits are still pending, though the same are against the private parties (he however states that in none of the civil suits, the relief of demarcation has been claimed). It is further pleaded that owing to the pendency of the present writ petition, the construction of the Hospital is held up. It is pleaded that the present writ petition is nothing but an attempt of the petitioner to retain his illegal possession of Khasra Nos.1033 & 1032 of Village-Molarband. It is yet further pleaded that the petitioner has already sold his land in Village-Meethapur and was now in occupation of Khasra No.1032 & 1033 of Village-Molarband and is falsely claiming the land in his possession to be part of Khasra Nos.393 & 399 of Village-Meethapur. It is contended that the petitioner if aggrieved from the demarcation report, instead of preferring an appeal thereagainst, has filed the present writ petition to perpetuate his illegality and which is holding up a public project.