Delhi High Court - Orders
Satish Vats vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 1 August, 2022
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2801/2021 & CM APPL. 8442/2021
SATISH VATS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kuldeep Sehrawat, Dr. Monisha
Sehrawat and Mr. Parvesh Vats,
Advocates
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC(GNCTD)
with Ms. Sheenu Priya and Mr.
Muhammad Zaid, Advocates for R-1
to 3.
Mr. I.S. Dahiya and Mr. Devender
Singh, Advocates for R-4.
SI Kishan Chand, P.S. Bindapur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 01.08.2022
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the impugned order dated 11.09.2020 passed by Ld. R.A./S.D.M., Dwarka.
II. Further direct the respondent no.2 to withdraw the directions already given to respondent no.3/SHO P.S. Bindapur, Delhi under the impugned order dated 11.09.2020.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:02.08.2022 18:11:18
III. Further direct the respondent no.3/SHO Bindapur not to act upon or implement the impugned order dated 11.09.2020 of the R.A/SDM, Dwarka."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 11th September 2020 has been passed by the SDM, Dwarka without jurisdiction as the land in question i.e., the entire revenue estate of Village Matiala has been urbanised under Section 507 of DMC Act, 1957 vide notification dated 24th October 1994.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 has also agreed with the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the concerned SDM has passed the impugned order without jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 vehemently submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the contentions made in the writ petition.
5. It has been brought to the attention of the Court by learned counsels for the parties, that Village Matiala has been urbanised under Section 507 of DMC Act, 1957 vide notification dated 24th October 1994. Due to urbanisation, the SDM's jurisdiction over the said area ceased to exist. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order has been passed by the concerned SDM without jurisdiction. It is a settled position of law that any order passed by an authority sans jurisdiction would be coram non judice and hence, a nullity. Therefore, there are no cogent reasons whatsoever to let such an order stay in operation.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:02.08.2022 18:11:186. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order for having been passed without jurisdiction by the concerned SDM. Since the impugned order has prima facie been found to be erroneous therefore, this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11th September 2020 is set aside.
7. The petitioner has liberty to avail legal remedies in accordance with law.
8. The instant writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J AUGUST 1, 2022 Aj/@k Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:02.08.2022 18:11:18