NEENA SETH Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming to be owner of 19 bighas and 14 biswas of land, where the farm house with boundary wall has been constructed by the petitioner. It is claimed that boundary was built along the main road and there was no encroachment of public land. It is claimed that boundary wall was built in the year 1983 and farm house was also constructed in 1984. Counsel for the petitioner states that respondent is seeking to demolish the boundary wall without any prior notice. Counsel for the petitioner states that boundary wall has been built on the land belonging to the petitioner and not on public land. An order directing status quo of the boundary wall was passed on 7.3.2000. Thereafter the matter continued awaiting completion of service and of pleadings. Respondents have filed counter affidavit, wherein it is claimed that petitioner had concealed that there was encroachment upon the land belonging to Gaon Sabha bearing Khasra No.38/7/2. It is claimed that the site was inspected by the patwari, who found that the petitioner was constructing a wall on the land belonging to Gaon Sabha. Appropriate action for demolition was therefore taken. Counsel for the respondent states that they demolished the constructed wall on the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha However, boundary wall on the land of the petitioner has not been touched by the answering respondents. A report from the Revenue Officials has also been produced. It is also claimed that a demarcation had earlier been carried out, which the respondents claim had been accepted by the petitioner.

(3.) Ms.Pinky Anand refutes the petitioner having accepted the factum of encroachment or the demarcation report. The construction of the wall being confined only to the land belonging to the petitioner or existing on the land of Gaon Sabha are disputed questions of fact, which require evidence and local investigation and cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. It would be open for the petitioner to seek her appropriate remedies before the Revenue Authorities in accordance with law, if she has any grievance with regard to the demarcation carried out or wishes to assail the said demarcation. Writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with these observations.