MUJEEB AHMAD AND ORS. Vs. DDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. APPL.2550/2005 and W.P.(C) 12409/2004, C.M. APPL.2551/2005, 11638/2006, 10522/2009 and 7476/2010 This judgment will dispose of C.M. Appl.2550/2005 as well as the writ petition. The application seeks recall of the judgment of this Court dated 03.11.2004 disposing of the writ petition.

(2.) In the writ petition, said to be in public interest, the claim made was for a direction to the first respondent - Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to remove alleged encroachment by demolishing structures from the northern portion of the graveyard (hereafter referred to variously as "Qabristan/graveyard") and also to restrain the fourth respondent (hereafter referred to as "the Arya Samaj Shamshan") from using the northern portion of the said graveyard. Further direction was sought against the sixth respondent, i.e. Delhi Police to enjoin them from using Khasra No.529 for parking purposes. The petitioner had alleged that in March 2004, the DDA, acting in connivance with other respondents started construction by encroaching upon the northern portion of the qabristan which resulted in the filing of an earlier proceeding, being W.P.(C) 3811-13/2004 [Mujeeb v. DDA and Ors] . That writ petition was disposed of on 17.03.2004, directing the respondents to examine the pleading in the writ petition as a representation and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

(3.) The petitioner also alleged that the DDA did not heed to the Court's order which led to the filing of further representation. With these allegations, the reliefs claimed were sought. The petitioner had relied principally upon a suit filed by the Delhi Wakf Board (DWB) against the then Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), being Suit no.60/1971 titled Delhi Wakf Board v. MCD before the Sub-Judge which was decreed on 12.09.1975 . The said judgment returned a finding that based upon the documents presented by the plaintiff, i.e. the DWB, that the land in question i.e. 7 bighas formed part of Khasra No.529, a decree for permanent injunction was, therefore, granted.