MUKESH MOHAN GOEL Vs. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this petition is as to whether a writ petition is an appropriate remedy when the reliefs sought in the petitioner have already been granted by virtue of a decree of the Civil Court.

(2.) THE petitioners before this Court claim to be the owners, in possession of certain lands near Arab Ki Sarai, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Their case is that the aforesaid property was initially owned by four persons namely M/s Mukhram, Gugan Mal, Panna Mal and Gauri Shankar from whom it was purchased by a partnership firm namely M/s I.S. Goel. The Estate Officer initiated proceedings against M/s I.S. Goel and Company which, according to the petitioners, was occupying a part of the aforesaid land at that time and passed an order dated 8.3.1978 directing payment of damages for the alleged unauthorized use and occupation of the said property. Two appeals bearing numbers PPA 54/78 and 55/78 were filed against the order dated 8.3.1978 passed by the Estate Officer. Vide order dated 22.2.1979, Shri O.P. Singla, the then Additional District Judge, Delhi set aside the order passed by the Estate Officer holding the land in question to be a private land owned by M/s Mukh Ram and others. He also found that M/s I.S. Goel and Company and R.K. Mehra, the appellants in the aforesaid appeals were the lessees of Mukh Ram and others. According to the petitioners, two writ petitions being W.P(C) Nos.2610/1986 and 687/1987 were filed against the aforesaid judgment dated 22.2.1979 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 9.5.1991 and the said order became final having not been challenged before a higher forum. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court sealed the entire property excepting a very small portion which was in the residential use of the petitioner no.8. In reply to a query under Right to Information Act, the petitioner no.8 was also informed by the respondent no.1-Archeological Survey of India (ASI) that the possession of the aforesaid property along with adjoining land had been handed over to it on 14.1.2003, by the government, for maintenance and upkeep.

(3.) THE Municipal Corporation of Delhi issued a notice under Section 348 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act in respect of property bearing number 16-A, Bagh Chandiwalan claiming therein that the said property was in a dangerous condition and requiring its demolition. Suit No.14/2001 was then filed by the petitioners before this Court against Municipal Corporation of Delhi seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against taking coercive steps pursuant to the said notice. Initially, the aforesaid suit was dismissed, but later the order dismissing the suit as well as the order of the First Appellate Court which had upheld the order of dismissal of that suit was set aside by this court in RSA 100/2011 and the matter as remanded back to the trial court where it is still pending. Another notice dated 3.10.2012 was issued to the petitioners by South Delhi Municipal Corporation in respect of the property bearing number 16-A, Bagh Chandiwalan claiming the said property to be the land belonging to Government of India allotted to ASI. The said notice was quashed by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2010 passed in W.P(C) No.6504/2012. This is also the allegation of the petitioners that on 30.11.2012 South Delhi Municipal Corporation without any notice demolished and raised to the ground the structure/ property belonging to them.