DHARAMVIR SINGH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main prayer made in this writ petition is to the following effect:

(2.) As is clear from the aforesaid prayer, the petitioners' case in this writ petition is that they and other co-villagers had been using Rasta from the land bearing Khasra No. 82 belonging to Gaon Sabha, which is the only way of access to their lands since long. Plot bearing Khasra No. 82 was declared a Johar land in the Consolidation proceedings held in the year 1954. Farmers of this village and other villagers are using this land for access to their agricultural land and to take their bullock cart, Tractor, trollies and other agricultural equipments. It is stated that in the year 1989, the respondent no.5 i.e. Gaon Sabha in order to protect its land in Khasra No.82 started construction of boundary wall. The villagers raised objection to the construction of this boundary wall as they apprehended that in that event their ingress and egress to their agricultural lands would be stopped. They made complaint to the then SDM/ Revenue Assistant. Report of the Patwari was called for and he submitted his report dated 17.1.1989 stating that land bearing Khasra No.82 belonged to Gaon Sabha and it was Johar land. This report was confirmed by Tehsildar who stated that as per the report of Patwari Halqua, the land was being used as Rasta by the villagers for last many years. Application dated 11.3.1991 was also filed before the SDM and on this application, SDM passed the following order:

(3.) The petitioners claim that ever since the said land is used as Rasta. However, in the month of May/June,. 2002, the respondent no.4, namely, Director, Directorate of Education, constructed a boundary wall on the land bearing Khasra No.82 resulting blockade of Rasta used by the villagers. It is further stated that the respondent no.4 was now raising further construction/demolition activity over the said land and in these circumstances, present petition is filed with afore-mentioned prayer. It may be mentioned that the petitioners have also stated about the order passed by Civil Judge in the Suit No.404/2002 which was filed by the respondents 7 to 11 i.e. other villagers and it is alleged that the said suit was filed without the knowledge of the petitioners and the- order passed therein is not binding on the petitioners. This aspect shall be dealt with at the appropriate stage in detail.