LAWS(DLH)-2012-3-476

NARENDER KUMAR NAGPAL Vs. DDA

Decided On March 23, 2012
Narender Kumar Nagpal Appellant
V/S
DDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, above captioned two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order as petitioners claim protection of The National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011 in respect of their property No.25, 25/1 and 25/2, in Village Lado Sarai Extension, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as subject land) as it is stated that this unauthorised colony is enlisted in the list of 1071 unauthorised colonies which are to be considered for regularization under the Regularisation Policy of the respondents.

(2.) THE response of the respondents is that the subject land was acquired vide Award No.36/80 -81 for planned development of Delhi but its physical possession was not handed over to DDA being built up and because of the stay in W.P.(C) No. 2965/2002 which was dismissed on 12th May, 2003 and Special Leave Petition against the same was also dismissed on 3rd January, 2005. In the said writ petition, petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land which falls in Lado Sarai, and not in Lado Sarai Extension, which of course, is subject matter of the process of regularization. As per the respondents, the subject land comes within the Heritage Zone and is to be developed as an Archeological park at Mehrauli, New Delhi. It is categorically denied by respondents in their counter Affidavit that the subject land forms part of any unauthorized colony which is due for regularization.

(3.) IT is evident from the Inspection Report (Annexure -I) that the subject land is acquired land under control of respondent -DDA and is not part of unauthorized colony of Lado Sarai Extension. It is relevant to note that the site inspection was done by the respondent -DDA as per the plan filed by the Residents Welfare Association of Lado Sarai Extension. All that has been stated by the petitioners is that the said inspection was done behind the back of the petitioners.