Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Jankalyan Lakshya Foundation (Regd) vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 2021

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 500

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh

                          $~3 (14.04.2021)
                          *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          %                                        Decision delivered on: 15.04.2021

                          +       W.P.(C) 12752/2018

                                  JANKALYAN LAKSHYA FOUNDATION (REGD)                        .....Petitioner

                                                     Through:      Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Mr. Rachit
                                                                   Sahney and Ms. Namrata Chauhan,
                                                                   Advs.
                                                     versus

                                  UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                    .....Respondents

                                                     Through:      Mr. Dhanesh Relan and Mrs.
                                                                   Prabhasahay Kaur, Advs. with Mr.
                                                                   Paritosh Dhawan, Advocate for DDA.
                                                                   Mr. R.K. Saini Advocate for R-7.
                                                                   Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate
                                                                   with Mr. Laksh Khanna and Mr.
                                                                   Yatharth Dohare, Advocates for the
                                                                   petitioner in W.P. (C) 13505/2019.
                                  CORAM:
                                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
                                  [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

                          RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

1. It is pertinent to note that although, there is a note contained in the cause list, which says that W.P. (C) Nos. 3699/2021 and 3747/2021 have also been listed, before this Court, today, along with the captioned writ petition, the case files concerning the said matters have not been placed before us by the Registry.

1.1 However, that need not detain us as the contesting respondent, i.e., respondent no. 7/Poorvanchal Social Welfare Society has moved an application being CM No. 24776/2020 in which the following substantial prayer has been made:

"(a) Issue appropriate order/direction disposing of the writ petition in view of the cancellation order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the DDA against the applicant/Respondent No. 7 vis-a-vis the demised premises, with liberty to the applicant/Respondent No. 7 to challenge the same in accordance with the law."

2. A perusal of the prayer clause would show that respondent no. 7 seeks, in effect, termination of the captioned petition on the ground that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has passed a cancellation order dated 15.09.2020 in respect of the subject premises. A copy of the order dated 15.09.2020 has also been appended with the application.

3. A perusal of the aforementioned cancellation order would show that a lease deed was executed in favour of respondent no. 7 on 03.04.2008, which though, has been determined and a consequential direction has been issued to handover the possession of the subject premises to the DDA. The handover was to take place on the date given in the cancellation order, i.e., 22.09.2020.

4. The said order also proclaims that if the subject premises are not handed over to the DDA, then, necessary proceedings would be initiated against the respondent no. 7.

4.1 Mr. R.K. Saini, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 7, concedes that the subject premises have not been handed over, as yet, to the DDA.

5. Mr. Dhanesh Relan, who appears on behalf of DDA, says that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P. (C) No. 12752/2018 Page 2 of 4 By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:18.04.2021 16:24:35 subject property was substantially sealed on 12.03.2021 and only one gate was kept open, which was also sealed on 05.04.2021. We are informed that one gate was left open as there were persons residing in the subject premises.

5.1 According to Mr. Relan, necessary communication has been sent to concerned authorities for disconnection of water and electricity connection(s).

5.2 Mr. Relan also informs us that the DDA has called upon the Estate Officer to take appropriate action under the Public Premises Act, 1971.

6. Mr. Saini, on the other hand, states that in the aforementioned writ petitions i.e. W.P. (C) Nos. 3699/2021 and 3747/2021, the cancellation order and sealing action have been challenged by respondent no. 7.

7. To be noted, the said writ petitions were transferred to this Court, we are told, in view of the captioned writ petition raising somewhat similar issues.

8. In our view, as correctly pointed out by Mr. Saini, the instant writ petition has run its course. However, when we queried learned counsel for the parties, appearing before us, as to whether any interim order has been passed in W.P. (C) Nos. 3699/2021 and 3747/2021, interdicting with the operation of the cancellation order or the sealing action, the response, which we received, was that no such orders have been passed up until today. 8.1. Therefore, as of now, insofar as this Court is concerned, no orders are required to be passed. The DDA, to our minds, should be left free to take next steps in the matter as per law.

8.2. This, however, will not come in the way of the petitioner(s) in W.P. (C) Nos. 3699/2021 and 3747/2021 seeking appropriate directions from the learned Single Judge.

8.3. The respondents, in those petitions, will obviously be entitled to have their say in the matters. Insofar as the petitioner, before us is concerned, it will be at liberty to move an appropriate application for intervention before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge may consider the application, if any, moved before him, albeit, in accordance with the law.

9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s) shall also stand closed.

10. Accordingly, W.P. (C) Nos. 3699/2021 and 3747/2021 will be placed before the learned Single Judge, for directions, on 26.04.2021.

11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the parties make a constructive suggestion, which is, that the subject premises can be handed over to the DDA who, in turn, will hand over the same to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi for treating patients afflicted with the Corona virus disease. In our opinion, this is a suggestion worth taking forward. The learned Single Judge may delve upon it and pass necessary directions, in that behalf, if deemed fit.

12. A copy of the order passed today, in the instant petition, will also be placed by the Registry in the case files concerning W.P. (C) Nos. 3699/2021 and 3747/2021.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TALWANT SINGH, J APRIL 15, 2021 mr Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P. (C) No. 12752/2018 Page 4 of 4 By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:18.04.2021 16:24:35