RAM PAL Vs. LT GOVERNMENT 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 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) 1 Supreme Court Cases 15. The present petition, in view of the settled law is, therefore, misconceived and cannot be entertained as the petitioner had earlier impugned the Notifications which were upheld by the Apex Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for petitioner, however, contends that the petitioner has not been dispossessed by the respondents. This plea that the petitioner is 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 petitioner is 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.

(3.) Paragraph 4 of the first Judgement reads as under: