Delhi High Court - Orders
Surinder Pal Singh Chadha vs Sdmc & Ors on 25 July, 2022
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5388/2021
SURINDER PAL SINGH CHADHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abdhesh Chaudhary, Mr.Akshat
Gupta, Mr.Lovedeep Raghav and
Ms.Geetanjali Sethi, Advs.
versus
SDMC & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rishikesh Kumar, ASC, GNCTD
with Ms.Sheenu Priya and Mohd.
Zeid, Advs. for R-3/SHO, P.S. Neb
Sarai and SI Vineet Kumar, P.S. Neb
Sarai.
Ms.Malvika Trivedi, Sr. Adv. with
Ms.Mrinalini Sen, Mr.Tanmay
Yadav, Mr.Sujal Gupta, Advs. for
R-4.
Mr.Vikas Mehta and Mr.Bhaskar
Nayak, Advs. for R-5.
Mr.Tushar Sannu, SC with
Ms.Priyansha Sinha, Advs. for MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 25.07.2022
1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs: -
"(a) Issue a writ, or order of direction, thereby declaring that the collection of entry money/fee by the respondent No.4 & 5 for ingress of commercial Vehicle or any Vehicle into Sainik farms through Gate No.1 & 2 as illegal and consequently direct the respondent 4 & 5 to utilize the already collected money for the welfare of "Sainik Farms" under the direction of this Hon'ble Court;
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:26.07.2022 17:09:16(b) Hold that the collection of entry money/fee by the respondent No.4 & 5 for ingress into Sainik Farms through Gate No.1 & 2 is without any authority of law;
c) Issue a writ, order or direction to the Respondents in the nature of mandamus for either removing iron-gates i.e. Gate No.1 & 2 of Sainik Farms or direct the respondent no.4 & 5 to keep these Gates open 24 x 7, so that no hindrance shall be caused to the essential delivery vehicles and other emergency vehicles like Ambulance."
2. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the act of the respondent Residents Welfare Associations' which appear to have constructed certain gates in order to control access to a private road. The road itself exists in an area which is popularly known as "Sainik Farms" and as per the return of the concerned Corporation, is an unauthorized colony.
3. The Residents Welfare Associations have from the material placed on the record, established that these colonies came into existence some time in 1965-68 and were based upon certain allotments of land said to have been made in favour of certain individual plot holders. According to those respondents, these plots were thereafter allotted to retired defense officers who came to settle down in the area. It is further disclosed that the road which is being alluded to is an internal road which is maintained by the Residents Welfare Associations' out of funds which are collected by them. They further assert that no funds are provided by any government agency and that the entire infrastructure is maintained by the Residents Welfare Associations' including the Sainik Farms Society. According to them, it is to fund the maintenance and development of these main colony roads that charges have been levied. The petitioner on the other hand contends that since the road has come to be used by private individuals for decades, is clearly a public road and in any case cannot answer the description of a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:26.07.2022 17:09:16 private road. It was further orally asserted that the respondents have also received funds from the Member of Legislative Assembly Local Area Development Scheme [MLALAD Scheme] for the construction and maintenance of the road and it is therefore manifest that it would be incorrect to describe that road as a public road. While this submission is duly noted, it becomes pertinent to note that no material in support of the aforesaid submission has been placed on the record.
4. Having perused the material which has been placed by the petitioners, the Court notes that there is no evidence which may even remotely establish that this road exists on land which may belong to or vest in the State. The material placed on the record in fact and to the contrary lends credence to the submission of the respondents that it is essentially a private road which has been developed and maintained by residents of "Sainik Farms". The Court's view on this aspect is further fortified from the return as submitted by the Municipal Corporation which had also disavowed its obligations in respect of this colony and unequivocally contended that it is private land on which that road exits and therefore beyond the control and management of the Corporation.
5. The right of access which is claimed by petitioner could have been considered provided the same had been raised or addressed in respect of land which belonged to the State or a road which may have been constructed or developed by a statutory authority so obligated to ensure the creation and maintenance of municipal infrastructure. The Court notes that no person can claim a right of access on or over land which belongs to a private entity.
6. Since the petitioner has failed to establish the above, the Court finds no ground to pursue this writ petition further.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:26.07.2022 17:09:167. The writ petition consequently fails and shall stand dismissed.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
JULY 25, 2022/bh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:26.07.2022 17:09:16