PRASHANT BHARDWAJ & ANR.  Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

WP(C) 580/202 1 Page 1 of 3

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decisio n : 15th January , 2021

+ W.P.(C) 580/2021
PRASHANT BHARDWAJ & ANR. ….. Petitioner s
Through: Petitioners in person

versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….. Responde nts
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant, Mr. Nitnem Singh Ghuman & Mr. Amit
Gupta, Advs. for R -1
Mr. Naushad ahmed Khan, ASC (Civil) &
Ms.Shobhana Takiar, ASC with Zahid Hanief & Ms. Manisha Chauhan, A dvs. for GNCTD
Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel for NDMC/R -3

CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGMENT

:
1. This writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers: D. N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)

Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video
conferencing.
“a. issue appropriate writ or direction against the respondents
and its officers and employees to remove encroachment on the land admeasuring 30,000 sq. yds. (which was earlier F -Type
2021:DHC:187-DB
WP(C) 580/202 1 Page 2 of 3

Quart ers for Class- IV employees of Union of India) now
popularly known as Sanjay Basti, adjacent to New Market,
Timarpur, Near Balakram Hospital, Timarpur, Delhi;
b) issue appropriate writ or direction against the respondents
and its officers and employees to secure the land on which the
Urban Development Ministry can easily construct the flats for government servants and / or for other department;
c) Call for the entire record of W.P.(C) No.7323 of 2016, titled as “Manju Sachdeva vs. Union of India & Ors.” to f orm part
of record of this present petition;
d) pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It appears from the facts of the present case that a number of houses
are to be demolished as per the prayers of this writ petitioner. This direction
cannot be issued by this Court in a Public Interest Litigation mainly for the
following reasons: –
(i) Owners/occupiers of the premises in question have not been
impleaded as party resp ondent s and in their absence a direction
is being sought by the p etitioners for demolition of the
structures owned or occupied by them.
(ii) No house /construction can be demolished without giving
adequate opportunity of being heard to the owners/occupiers of
the same;
(iii) Legality or otherwise of the c onstruction cannot be proved or
established on the basis of bare assertion s made in the memo of
the writ petition. Cogent and convincing evidence is required
to substantiate the alleg ed illegality of the
constructio n/encroachment, especially when the constructions
2021:DHC:187-DB
WP(C) 580/202 1 Page 3 of 3

are in existen ce for the last several years;
(iv) It also appears from the averments made in the petition that the
area in question is spread over 30,000 sq. yds. and a large
number of persons are inhabiting the said area . All these
persons have been staying there for the last several years and if
at all , they can only be evicted by due process of law and
initiation of appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Forum ,
with proper and co mplete documents, substantive
avermen ts/allegations and not on the basis of vague and
unsubstanti ated pleadings, as in the present petition.
3. The additional a rgument of the petitioners is that they had initially
filed a similar writ petition, which was disposed of on account of the death
of the petitioner therein and the present petition seeking the same relief has
been filed by the petitioners in person, cannot also be of any avail to the
petitioners , for the reasons mentioned above . It appears to us that this is not
a Public Interest Litigation at all , but in fact
4. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we see no reason to entertain this
writ petition and hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. a publicity interest litigation.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JYOTI SINGH, J

JANUARY 15, 2021
ns
2021:DHC:187-DB