SURENDER MOHAN RANA Vs. SDM RA SARASVATI VIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter was taken up for hearing in the pre-lunch session, as petitioner No. 1, who appeared in person, stated that his counsel was not available today, he was asked whether he needed accommodation by grant of an adjournment. He, however, declined to take an adjournment and instead submitted that he was ready to argue the matter on merits himself. Arguments were thereafter addressed by petitioner No. 1 for over one hour in the pre lunch session and the matter spilled over to the post- lunch session for further arguments. Now, when the Court has assembled in the post-lunch session, petitioner No. 1 seeks an adjournment on the ground that he would like his counsel to argue the matter. His request is declined, since when the matter was taken up, this option was given to him, which he categorically refused to accept and insisted that the matter, being of the year 2005, is required to be heard and disposed of today itself, irrespective of his counsel's presence.

(2.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for a twofold relief. The first relief sought by the petitioners is for directions to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to restrain respondents No. 6 to 14 from raising illegal, unlawful and unauthorised construction/structures over the agricultural land comprising in Khasra No. 71/2, 71/3/1 and 71/9 situated in the Revenue Estate of village Ghevra, Delhi. The second relief sought by the petitioners is for directions to respondent No. 1, SDM/RA, Sarasvati Vihar, to take a decision upon the matters remanded by the learned Financial Commissioner, Delhi vide orders dated 21.05.1999.

(3.) As far as the second relief is concerned, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 1, despite orders dated 21.05.1999 passed by the Financial Commissioner, remanding certain matters back to him, their remedy lies before the learned Financial Commissioner and not before this Court. Under the garb of seeking the aforesaid relief, this Court cannot be permitted to be converted into an executing court by the petitioners. Hence, while declining the said relief in the present writ petition, leave is granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for seeking implementation of the orders dated 21.05.1999 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Annexure P-4).