Full Judgment
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that the DDA had illegally demolished his flour mill being run in the name of Ashoka Flour Mill, located in Khasra No. 100/28, admeasuring 450 Sq. yards, in village Razapur, Badli in an action on 12-9-1996. In the present writ petition, petitioner seeks permission for raising construction as also for protection of his possession.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before that the DDA has in a blatantly illegal action demolished the flour mill, which falls within khasra No. 100/28. Learned counsel in support of it relies on document filed along with the writ petition, showing that the plot of the petitioner was not under acquisition, Reliance is placed on a list of khasra Numbers that had been acquired. In any way, this need not detain us any further, as it is not the case of the petitioner that khasra No. 100/28 had been acquired.
3. On the other hand, case of the respondent is that demolition action that was carried out in khasra Nos. 106/13 and 106/ 14 and it did not relate to khasra No. 100/ 28. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that khasra Nos. 106/13 and 106/14 were abutting khasra No. 100/28 and it was the encroachment in khasra No. 106/13 and 106/14, which was removed. As per the respondent khasra No. 106 was acquired vide Award No. 35/81-82. Physical possession was handed over to DDA on 12-11-1981. Further notification under Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act was issued on 15-12-1981. As the encroachment was on DDA land no show cause notice was necessary to be given.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on an application moved before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, pursuant to which, Patwari has filed a report stating that the premises of the petitioner was situated at 450 Sq. Yards, which was part of khasra No. 100/28. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that this investigation was ex parte and without the participation of the respondent. It is also pointed out that petitioner had filed a civil suit for injunction in the District Court, where petitioner had sought a restraint on the respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner from the property situated in village Razapur. Badli, part of khasra No. 100/28. Accordingly, the respondent urges that having filed a civil suit, the writ petition should not be entertained.
5. The crux of the controversy between the parties is whether the structure that was demolished in an action of 12-9-1996 was located in Khasra No. 100/28, which the petitioner claims is not under any acquisition and belongs to him or the demolition was confined to structure that had been raised to the adjoining portion of the land, namely, khasra Nos. 106/13 and 106/14, which has been acquired by the respondent/DDA.
6. The petitioner has no doubt, obtained a demarcation report from the patwari. However, the veracity and authenticity of it is questioned by the respondent This matter in my view raises disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into and determined in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The nature of controversy is such that of necessity, it would require evidence to be led, in a trial, with opportunity of cross-examination. I do not find it to be a fit a case to be entertained in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
It would be open for the petitioner to seek his remedies in civil forum. The writ petition is dismissed.