Mumtaz Ahmad Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr

Mumtaz Ahmad vs Delhi Development Authority and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Nov 06, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/957676

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/957676
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: G.P. Mittal
Decided On: Nov 06, 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mumtaz Ahmad

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority and anr

Excerpt

.....filed by the petitioner with the contention that the petitioner is in possession of a portion of the khasra no.1151/3 (old khasra no.1665), min mehrauli, delhi-110030.6. it was stated that the petitioner became the owner of the property by way of an adverse possession. on 18.09.2012, respondent no.1 (dda) tried to demolish the property and asked the petitioner to vacate the same.7. feeling aggrieved by the illegal action of respondent no.1, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction. respondent no.2 delhi wakf board was impleaded as a party as the property was stated to be wakf property.8. the petitioners grievance is that inspite of the fact that the suit for permanent injunction was filed on 30.09.2012 and the respondents have already entered their appearance, his application under order xxxix rule 1 and 2 of the cpc has not been decided, nor any interim protection has been given.9. learned counsel for respondent no.1, on instructions from the dda, states that no demolition is being carried out or is to be carried out by the dda in khasra no.1151/3 (old khasra no.1665), min mehrauli, delhi110030.10. in view of the statement given by mr.rahul bhandari, advocate for respondent no.1 dda, nothing survives in the instant petition. there is no question of any apprehension to the petitioner for any demolition in khasra no.1151/3 (old khasra no.1665), min mehrauli, delhi-110030.11. in view of the above, the petition stands disposed of.12. no costs.13. order dasti under the signature of the court master/private secretary. (g.p. mittal) judge november 06 2012 v

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:

6. h November, 2012 + CM(M) 1204/2012 MUMTAZ AHMAD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Syed Hasan Isfahani & Ms.Vasundha Baja, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rahul Bhandari, Advocate for R-1 DDA Mr.Javed Ahmed, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT C.M. APPL No.18852/2012(Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CM(M) 1204/2012 & CM. APPL No.18851/2012(Stay) 1. Mr.Rahul Bhandari, Advocate appears on behalf of Respondent No.1 DDA on advance copy being served upon him.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr.Rahul Bhandari, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 accepts notice.

4. Mr.Javed Ahmed, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 accepts notice.

5. A suit for permanent injunction etc. was filed by the Petitioner with the contention that the Petitioner is in possession of a portion of the Khasra No.1151/3 (Old Khasra No.1665), Min Mehrauli, Delhi-110030.

6. It was stated that the Petitioner became the owner of the property by way of an adverse possession. On 18.09.2012, Respondent No.1 (DDA) tried to demolish the property and asked the Petitioner to vacate the same.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the illegal action of Respondent No.1, the Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction. Respondent No.2 Delhi Wakf Board was impleaded as a party as the property was stated to be Wakf property.

8. The Petitioners grievance is that inspite of the fact that the suit for permanent injunction was filed on 30.09.2012 and the Respondents have already entered their appearance, his Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC has not been decided, nor any interim protection has been given.

9. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1, on instructions from the DDA, states that no demolition is being carried out or is to be carried out by the DDA in Khasra No.1151/3 (Old Khasra No.1665), Min Mehrauli, Delhi110030.

10. In view of the statement given by Mr.Rahul Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent No.1 DDA, nothing survives in the instant Petition. There is no question of any apprehension to the Petitioner for any demolition in Khasra No.1151/3 (Old Khasra No.1665), Min Mehrauli, Delhi-110030.

11. In view of the above, the Petition stands disposed of.

12. No costs.

13. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master/Private Secretary. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 06 2012 v

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2012 Same Parties Mumtaz Ahmad vs Delhi Development Authority and anr Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge G.P. Mittal