ANKUR MUTERJA Vs. PUBLIC GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court claims to be in possession of a portion of House No. 156, Gagan Vihar, Delhi. One S.N. Singhal filed a grievance petition before Public Grievance Commission, alleging unauthorized encroachment on public land by construction of House No. 156 of Gagan Vihar Extension towards south side, thereby blocking the pedestrian passage on the disused canal road. Gagan Vihar Extension is an unauthorized colony. Vide its letter dated 12.11.2012, the Commission requested the Chief Engineer, PWD to ascertain the nature of the problem of the petitioner and take corrective measures under law, for resolving the same. The petitioner before this Court wrote a letter dated 06.01.2013 to the Executive Engineer, PWD, referring to the complaint made by some persons from Gagan Vihar Society, alleging encroachment on PWD land and stating that the work of Master Plan Road had been completed way back on 23.04.2008 and a footpath was constructed alongside the Master Plan Road stretch from Gate No. 3, Gagan Vihar to House No. 1, Gagan Vihar, but no service road was constructed. He further alleged that thereafter a boundary wall was constructed on the final Kerb stone of the footpath of the Master Plan Road stretch from Gate No. 1, Gagan Vihar to House No. 1, Gagan Vihar, but no boundary wall was constructed in front of houses No. 152 to 156, which were abutting directly onto the footpath of the Master Plan road. He claimed that no portion of houses No. 141 to 156 of Gagan Vihar Extension was encroaching upon any portion of the already completed Master Plan Road. He accordingly requested that no action may be taken on the complaints made by such persons.

(2.) VIDE order dated 06.02.2013, the Commission noted that there was no record of land ownership of area in question available with PWD or MCD. The Engineer- in-Chief of PWD was directed to take the matter with the Development Commissioner and seek their help in demarcation of land in question. During the subsequent hearing before the Commission on 07.03.2013, the Executive Engineer of PWD informed that it would be able to take further action in the matter once demarcation has been done. During the hearing before the Commission on 14.05.2013, Action Taken Report was submitted by PWD informing that a request had been made to the Deputy Commissioner to mark the right of way to disused canal road. He also informed that the petitioner before this Court Ankur Muterja had claimed that he had not encroached on PWD land. The complainant before the Commission, however, insisted that there was indeed an encroachment on PWD land or road by owners of House No. 152 to 156 of Gagan Vihar Extension. In these circumstances, the Commission directed the Deputy Commissioner to expedite action on the request of PWD for demarcation of the right of way. Vide order dated 19.06.2013, the Commission advised SDM, Preet Vihar to initiate action for demarcation as had been requested by PWD, particularly on the stretch in front of House Nos. 152 to 156 of Gagan Vihar Extension. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid direction by the Commission, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) MORE importantly, I fail to appreciate any valid objection the petitioner can have, to demarcation being carried out to identify as to whether there is any encroachment on the disused canal road or not. No order for demolition of any part of the house occupied by the petitioner has been passed by the Commission. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to show the extent of land which he claims was acquired by his father by way of documents such as Power of Attorney/Agreement to Sell. The petition does not even disclose the area of the land occupied by him on which the aforesaid house has been constructed. In these circumstances, it becomes important to ascertain as to whether construction of the house occupied by the petitioner has resulted in encroachment on the canal road or not and this verification cannot be done unless demarcation of the said road is carried out. If any action is sought to be taken for demolition of the house occupied by the petitioner or any part of the said house, it would be open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as is available to him in law in this regard, but he cannot have valid objection to demarcation being carried out for the purpose of verifying whether there is any encroachment on the disused canal road or not. I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.