PURAN SINGH Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of a writ of mandamus for commanding the respondents to do their public duty of not disturbing the peaceful possession of the land of the petitioners except according to due process of law and after giving a notice of reasonable time and for further relief that the respondents be directed to pay an exemplary amount of compensation for harassing the petitioners by sending officers etc. to dispossess them. The Notifications which are the subject matter of the present petition were upheld by a Full Bench of this Court reported as Roshanara Begum v. Union of India, 1996 I Apex Decision (Delhi) 6=61 (1996) DLT 206 (FB) which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of India vide its Judgement reported as Murari and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1997) I Supreme Court Cases 15=65 (1997) DLT 1001 (SC). The present petition, in view of the settled law is, therefore, misconceived and cannot be entertained as the petitioners had earlier impugned the Notifications which were upheld by the Apex Court.

(2.) The learned Counsel for petitioners, however, contends that the petitioners have not been dispossessed by the respondents. This plea that the petitioners are still in possession of the acquired land is refuted by learned Counsel for the respondents and it is reiterated that the necessary steps have already been taken and the petitioners are raising false pleas when all acquisition proceedings have completed. The Judgements reported as Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of Punjab and Others, (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 212 and in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam (Dead) by Lrs., (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 259 have been cited in this regard. Paragraph 4 of the first Judgement reads as under:

(3.) Similarly, in the second Judgment the Supreme Court in Paragraph 9 has stated as follows: