Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh. Vikrant Khanna & Ors vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 10 November, 2021
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12592/2021
SH. VIKRANT KHANNA & ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Adv.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, ASC (GNCTD)
with Mr. Devendra Kumar and Mr.
Faran Ahmed, Advs. for respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr.Rajneesh Vats, Adv. for
respondent No. 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 10.11.2021 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] CM. APPL.39662/2021(For exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12592/2021 & CM. APPL.39661/2021(For stay)
1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. The petitioners here claim interest in the property in question pursuant to a lease deed which is stated to have been executed in their favour by the respondent No. 4. The essential challenge is to a warrant of possession dated October 18, 2021. Those warrants have come to be issued consequent to an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:11.11.2021 15:37:12 order of eviction dated January 6, 2015 passed by the respondents against the original tenure holder under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Before the Court, it is fairly conceded that once the interest of the lessor came to be extinguished in terms of the order aforementioned, the petitioners have no option but to remove all their effects from the property in question subject to rights being reserved to initiate and take recourse to an appropriate legal remedy against the respondent No. 4 as may be permissible in law. The immediate apprehension which was expressed was in light of the petitioner asserting that pursuant to being put in possession in terms of the lease deed dated January 31, 2018, they have made numerous improvements and additions upon the property in question and that some reasonable time may be afforded to them to remove the same voluntarily and at their own expense.
3. Mr. Vats who appears for the respondent No. 4 has however submitted that the said respondent has initiated proceedings for recall of the order of January 06, 2015 which according to him had come to be passed ex- parte and have also proceeded to terminate the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner. Additionally, it was submitted that certain permanent structures existed on the plot at the time when the petitioners were inducted into possession pursuant to the lease deed that was executed. He submitted that adequate arrangements may consequently be made permitting the petitioner to dismantle and take away such additional improvements that may have been made by them in the presence of the representative(s) of the respondent No.4 as well as representative(s) of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
4. When the matter was initially taken up, Mr. Devendra Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was granted time to obtain Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:11.11.2021 15:37:12 instructions and apprise the Court whether some reasonable time could be afforded to the petitioners to undertake the exercise which has been taken note of above. Learned counsel on instructions apprises the Court that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would be satisfied if all improvements or additions to the property which may have been made by the petitioners here are removed within two weeks at their own expense.
5. Mr. Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the petitioners undertake to remove all additions and improvements which have been made on the property by them within a period of two weeks and at their own expense. Learned counsel for the petitioners further and on instructions undertakes before this Court, that they will ensure that no damage or loss is caused to any other permanent structure(s) or the land in question which existed on the spot when the lease deed was executed and the petitioners were put into possession.
6. Mr. Devendra Kumar, learned counsel, states that the petitioners as well as the representatives of the respondent No.4 may appear on the site in question on 16.11.2021 at 11:00 am, so that a joint exercise for earmarking of stated additions and improvements is undertaken and the petitioners then proceed to remove the same within a period of two weeks therefrom.
7. In view of the above, the undertakings and the statements noted above are recorded and accepted. The petition along with the pending application shall consequently stand disposed of in the following terms.
8. The representatives of the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent shall appear on the site in question on 16.11.2021 at 11 A.M. and present themselves before the representatives of the respondents. The State respondents shall duly earmark the asserted additions and improvements Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:11.11.2021 15:37:12 stated to have been made by the petitioners in the presence of parties. Upon the aforesaid exercise being completed, the petitioners in light of the undertaking given to this Court remove the same within a period of 2 weeks therefrom.
9. Parties are accorded liberty to approach this Court and seek revival of this petition if circumstances so warrant.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 10, 2021/bh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:11.11.2021 15:37:12