Badley Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others

Badley Ram vs Delhi Development Authority and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 06, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/702500

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/702500
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mr. Manmohan Sarin, J.
Decided On: Sep 06, 2001
Case Number: CW No. 2333/98 and CM 5792/98
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case dealt with a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of directions to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to take action against the encroachments made by the respondents - The DDA had admitted the encroachments made by the respondents - It was held that the Court cou...

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Badley Ram

Advocate A.K. Bajpai, Adv

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority and Others

Advocate Mr. D.K. Rustogi, Adv.; Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 95(2002)DLT380

Excerpt

the case dealt with a writ of mandamus under article 226 of the constitution of india, for issuance of directions to the delhi development authority (dda) to take action against the encroachments made by the respondents - the dda had admitted the encroachments made by the respondents - it was held that the court could not exercise the writ jurisdiction to go into the disputed question of fact or to embark into demarcation to determine the boundaries where the encroachments were existing - further, the dda was directed to discharge its statutory obligation with dispatch for removal of encroachments on the public land - - however, dda has failed to remove the encroachments......on behalf of respondent 4 to 7 denies the allegations of encroachment. he submits that respondents are in occupation of land owned by them. he further seeks to urge certain alleged contradictions in the stand of the petitioner with regard to the particular khasra numbers, where encroachments are alleged. counter affidavit filed by the dda admits encroachment in khasra n.384 by respondents 4 to 7. it is also claimed by dda that they had initiated action and sought removal of the encroachments. mr. rustogi wanted to persuade me to go into the question of determination of the exact boundaries and particulars of khasra numbers, where the encroachments are said to be existing. it is not the function of this court in writ jurisdiction to get into these disputed questions of fact embark into demarcation for determining the boundaries.5. respondent/dda admits that the land had been acquired and claims there to be an encroachment by respondents 4 to 7 in khasra no.384. it would be for the dda to discharge its statutory obligations with dispatch and in case respondents 4 to 7 wishes to raise any disputes with regard to the exact location or dispute the factum of said encroachments, it would be for the said respondents to take such remedies as available at law. as far as this writ petition is concerned, let the dda proceed with dispatch with regard to removal of encroachments on public land. ordered accordingly.6. writ petition stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

Rule.

1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. The petitioner has field this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus the Delhi Development Authority, Development Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner for taking action against respondents 4 to 7 for alleged encroachments. Petitioner seeks a mandamus to respondents 1 to and 3 to get evicted respondents 4 to 7 from a piece of land, which is claimed to be a part of khasra No.384, situated at Village Khanpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. The said portion is stated to be in the illegal occupation of respondents 4 to 7.

3. Case of the petitioner in short is that a total area of 7 bighas and 7 bids was of land in khasra No.384 was acquired and ti was handed over to DDA. However, DDA has failed to remove the encroachments. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a result of the encroachments, the respondents have blocked a passage/rasta, which is the subject matter of challenge in Suit. No. 1603/96.It is further claimed that a boundary wall has also been constructed by the respondent 4 to 7 in one bigha of khasra No.384. Further that as a result of encroachments by respondents 4 to 7 in khasra No.469, the access to the house of the petitioner is also obstructed.

4. Mr. D.K. Rustogi who appears on behalf of respondent 4 to 7 denies the allegations of encroachment. He submits that respondents are in occupation of land owned by them. He further seeks to urge certain alleged contradictions in the stand of the petitioner with regard to the particular khasra numbers, where encroachments are alleged. Counter affidavit filed by the DDA admits encroachment in Khasra N.384 by respondents 4 to 7. It is also claimed by DDA that they had initiated action and sought removal of the encroachments. Mr. Rustogi wanted to persuade me to go into the question of determination of the exact boundaries and particulars of khasra numbers, where the encroachments are said to be existing. It is not the function of this court in writ jurisdiction to get into these disputed questions of fact embark into demarcation for determining the boundaries.

5. Respondent/DDA admits that the land had been acquired and claims there to be an encroachment by respondents 4 to 7 in khasra No.384. It would be for the DDA to discharge its statutory obligations with dispatch and in case respondents 4 to 7 wishes to raise any disputes with regard to the exact location or dispute the factum of said encroachments, it would be for the said respondents to take such remedies as available at law. AS far as this writ petition is concerned, let the DDA proceed with dispatch with regard to removal of encroachments on public land. Ordered accordingly.

6. Writ petition stands disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Badley Ram vs Delhi Development Authority and Others Same Subject Property Same Judge Mr. Manmohan Sarin, J.

Property