RAJESH SHARMA Vs. GOVT. BOYS SR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Respondents to vacate and handover peaceful possession of land measuring 216.75 Sq. Yd. marked as Plot No. 2 in Khasra No. 268/2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plot in question') in the revenue estate of erstwhile village Nangal Raya near D-Block of Janakpuri and bearing House No.1391/33 in the records of MCD to the Petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case, as narrated by the Petitioner, are that the Petitioner purchased the plot in question by way of a registered sale deed dtd. 30/1/2006. It is stated that after purchasing the plot the Petitioner herein constructed a boundary wall around it. It is stated that the erstwhile principal of the Respondent School filed a complaint against the Petitioner alleging encroachment over school land. It is stated that FIR No.171/2007 dtd. 5/7/2007 was registered against the Petitioner at Police Station Mayapuri for offences under Ss. 447/34 of the IPC. It is stated that the Petitioner was arrested and faced trial and the boundary wall constructed by the Petitioner over the plot in question was also demolished. It is stated that the Plot in question was merged with the Respondent School land. It is further stated that vide Order dtd. 30/1/2017, the Petitioner was acquitted. It is stated that the Petitioner wrote a number of letters to the Revenue Authorities for demarcating the plot in question and to separate it from the land enclosed by the Respondent School. It is stated that on 10/3/2022 the Revenue Authorities refused to demarcate the plot in question on the ground that the since Village Nagal Raya has been urbanised, the Revenue Authorities do not have the jurisdiction to demarcate any land in the said village. The Petitioner has, thereafter, approached this Court with the following prayers:

(3.) It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has wrongly been dispossessed from the plot in question and, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to be put back in possession of the said plot. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Anju Devi v. Commissioner of Police, 1994 SCC OnLine Del 327 and Vijay Khanna v. Union of India, 1998 SCC OnLine Del 846. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also states that the Petitioner has been deprived of his rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.