- A plea was being heard by a bench composed of two judges, Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kant, seeking direction against the authorities to hand over or restore back the vacant and peaceful possession of a land.
- Alternatively, petitioner also sought direction against the authorities in order to acquire the land in question under the right to fair compensation and transparency in the land acquisition and resettlement act, 2013.
- It was asserted that the Registrar of the High Court had executed the sale deed dated November 8, 1993 in favour of the Petitioner.
- In terms of the said registered sale deed, the Petitioner claimed themself to be the absolute owner of the land in question. Additionally, the land in question was mutated in the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records.
- Thus, the case of the Petitioner was that the land in question was in illegal possession of the DDA and consequently, they approached the DDA for handing over the possession of the land to the petitioner.
- As the DDA failed to take any action on the said request, the Petitioner approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. Considering the order dated December 1, 1997, the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land in question.
- It was then stated that during the pendency of the previously mentioned Petition, the Petitioner applied for demarcation of the land in question with the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Kalkaji). The demarcation was carried out and the report concluded that the land in question was the part of a developed colony, however, the exact location of the land in question could not be recognized during the demarcation proceedings.
- It was contended by the Petitioner that they had issued a legal notice to the Delhi Jal Board asking them to vacate the land in question. However, they did not receive any positive response with regard to the said legal notice.
- The Petitioner had filed various representations with the Respondents for acquiring the land in question and to grant market value of the said land as compensation to the Petitioner or alternatively, to allot another plot having same market value as that of the land in question. However, since no response was received, the petitioner approached the High Court.
- The Court was of the perspective that the matter involved disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in a writ petition. It noted that the Petitioner claimed to be the purchaser of the land in question, however, the Respondents were in possession of the land in question even before the sale deal for the given land was executed in favour of the Petitioner.
- The Court was therefore of the view that the Writ Petition was not the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner. It noted that the Petitioner was a subsequent purchaser who purchased the land in question from the earlier original owners, however, there was nothing on record to show that the possession of the land in question was handed over to the Petitioner.
- Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition by ordering that the petitioner has the liberty to pursue other remedies available under law for establishing its right to claim substantial relief as claimed under the petition.
"Loved reading this piece by Mahi Manchanda ?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
