Delhi High Court - Orders
The Application For Restoration Of The ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 1 April, 2022
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta, Neena Bansal Krishna
$~2 (upto 2020)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3441/2016
CM APPL. 7277/2020 (restoration)
CM APPL. 7278/2020 (condonation of delay of 71 days in re-filing
the application for restoration of the writ petition)
HARI SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr Rajiv Kumar Ghawana and Mr
Neelaksh Sharma, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr
Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for
for R-1 and R-2/LAC & L&B.
Ms Kritika Gupta, Advocate for R-
3/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 01.04.2022 CM APPL. 7278/2020
1. By this application, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 71 days in re-filing the application for restoration of the writ petition.
2. Notice.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 accepts notice. Notice is also accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
4. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 71 days in re- filing the application for restoration is condoned.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(C) 3441/2016 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:01.04.2022 20:07:515. Application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 7277/20201. By this application, the petitioner seeks restoration of the writ petition.
2. Notice.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice.
4. As per the application, counsel for the petitioner had to travel out of Delhi and the colleague of the learned counsel was held up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another matter and thus could not appear.
5. For the documents placed on record and the averments made in the application, the same is allowed.
6. Application is disposed of restoring the writ petition to its original position.
W.P.(C) 3441/2016
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties in part.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 has taken this Court to the counter affidavit filed. Though on one hand it is claimed that the land falling in khasra numbers 18/4 (4-14), 5/1 (2-08), 6/1 (2-08) & 7/2 (3-10) is Gram Sabha land and the revenue records further reflects that khasra number 23/22/1 (2-08) and 23/2/2 (2-08) also belongs to Gram Sabha, however on the other hand, it is also stated that the petitioner nos.9 to 12 are not the recorded owners of the land, thereby not disputing the claim of petitioner nos.1 to 8.
3. On a query raised by this Court that if it was a Gram Sabha land whether the respondent was required to issue a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as done on 21st March, 2003 followed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(C) 3441/2016 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:01.04.2022 20:07:51 by a notification under Section 6 of the Act on 17 th March, 2004 and the award published on 12th August, 2005, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has no answer. She prays for time to go through the original records.
4. At request, re-notify on 6th April, 2022.
5. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
APRIL 1, 2022 MK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(C) 3441/2016 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:01.04.2022 20:07:51