Delhi High Court - Orders
Kiran Pal Singh Tyagi vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 13 December, 2022
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~112
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16999/2022
KIRAN PAL SINGH TYAGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Anjani Kumar Mishra,
Ms Hardeep Kaur Mishra, Mr
Praveen Mishra, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Sumit K. Batra, Advocate for R1
and R6. Mr Jatin Singh, Advocate for
R2/UOI.
Mr Yeeshu Jain, Advocate Standing
Counsel with Ms Jyoti Tyagi,
Ms Manisha Advocate for R5(LAC)
Ms Mrinalini Sen Gupta, Madhavi
Aggarwal, Standing Counsel for
DDA.
Mr Vikrant N. Goyal, Advocate for
R2 and R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH
ARORA
ORDER
% 13.12.2022
1. The present petition has been filed, placing reliance on the judgment dated 30.09.2021, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11171/2021. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to place reliance upon the observations made by the Division Bench at paragraph 6 of its order, which read as under:-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:15.12.2022 13:27:04"6. Consequently, we are of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable in respect of the reliefs sought and we, accordingly, dismiss the same. At the same time, since the petitioner alleges fraud and collusion inter se the respondents, we leave it open to the petitioner to bring the alleged fraud to the notice of the respondent authorities and if the petitioner makes a representation in this regard, the respondent authorities shall examine the same with all seriousness with a view to protect public interest and public property."
2. He states that the Petitioner in pursuance to the observations made by the Division Bench, has made a representation to the Respondent No. 3, Delhi Development Authority ('DDA'), on 26.07.2022, which has been annexed to the present petition as Annexure P-19. He states that as per the Petitioner, the ownership of the land bearing Khasra No. 183 min, Abadi School Block, Village Shakarpur, Delhi - 110092, lies with Respondent No. 3, DDA. He states that the Petitioner has not yet heard with respect to the decision taken by Respondent No. 3, DDA, on the Petitioner's representation.
3. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3. DDA, states that she does not have any instructions in this matter.
4. This Court is of the opinion that keeping in view the observations made by the Division Bench in its order dated 30.09.2021, it would be appropriate that Respondent No. 3, DDA, considers the representation dated 26.07.2022, filed by the Petitioner and pass an appropriate order and may decide it expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the veracity of the allegations made by the Petitioner in this writ petition and Respondent No. 3, DDA, may decide the Petitioner's representation in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:15.12.2022 13:27:045. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the record of the DDA and its officers would reveal that the land belongs to Respondent No. 3, DDA.
7. This Court is persuaded to make this direction as it is the assertion of the Petitioner that the land belongs to Respondent No. 3, DDA and if the contention of the Petitioner is correct, then the Respondent No. 3, DDA, would be well advised to protect its land.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J DECEMBER 13, 2022 pkv/aa Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:15.12.2022 13:27:04