RAVI KUMAR JAIN Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: Before we point out the nature of orders passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner and thereafter in the applications filed by the petitioner for recall of those orders, we briefly trace out the history of the present litigation.

(2.) THE appellant claims to be in possession of land measuring 19 bhigas and 18 biswas in Khasra No. 1569 in the revenue estate of village Mehrauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. As per the averments he owned 18 bhiga and 10 biswas of land and in respect of remaining 1 bhiga and 8 biswas he entered into an agreement to sell with the co-owners of the said land and has obtained possession from the vendors under the said agreement to sell. THE dispute today has arisen about the way/passage for accessing the aforesaid land of the appellant. THE way/passage of the appellant is through the main road where a gate has been constructed by the respondent no.3 which further leads to another gate also constructed by respondent no.3. THE metalled road ends at this point i.e. the second gate. THEreafter, the unmetalled/kacha passage moves ahead passing through other lands and leading eventually to the said land. According to the appellant, when he purchased the land in question, the previous land owners granted the right to way/passage to him and he was using this passage/right of way since the purchase of the land by him without any obstruction. This is the northern side of the land of the appellant which passes through Khasra No. 1561-64. THE area in question contains old/ancient structures and ruins. THE land in question stands acquired by the DDA (Respondent no.1). As per the Archaeological Survey of India (Respondent No.3), this land through which the appellant wants passage to access his land falls within the boundaries of the protected sites under the Archaeological Survey Act.

(3.) COMING to the events which have lead to controversy and present appeal, these two writ petitions came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge. The matter was heard at length on 24.11.2011. It appears that there was a serious reservation about the maintainability of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as these issues could be sorted out in appropriate civil or revenue Court. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the petitions with the liberty to pursue rights before the appropriate civil or revenue Court. The petitions were allowed to be withdrawn. As this order is the bone of contention, we would like to reproduce the same in its entirety:-