SANJAY GUPTA vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
$~J-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th November 2023
+ W.P.(C) 1852/2022
SANJAY GUPTA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Vashishth, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Sumit Kumar Shukla, Advocate
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel (Civil) GNCTD with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC (Civil) with Mr. Arun Panwar, Ms. Sheenu Singh and Ms. Prashansa Sharma, Advocates.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
J U D G M E N T
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.
By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing/setting-aside of communications dated 12.07.2021, 06.08.2021, 18.08.2021 and 23.08.2021 issued by the respondents. As detailed in the petition, by way of the said communications, the respondents have declined to process the petitioners lay-out plan for a group housing project on land comprised in Khasra Nos. 532/1, 532/2 and 531/2 in Village : Chandanhula (subject land) by reason of alleged inconsistencies and anomalies stated to have been found in the consolidation process of the land in that village, which proceedings are stated to be still on-going.
2. Consequent upon order dated 22.03.2022 made in the matter, counter-affidavit dated 04.05.2022 was filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Respondent No.6/South Delhi Municipal Corporation, which is stated to be a non-contesting party in relation to the dispute, has not filed any counter affidavit. The petitioner has also filed additional affidavit dated 19.07.2022. Additional affidavits dated 24.03.2023 and 11.08.2023 have also been filed by respondent No. 2/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehrauli (SDM) in the matter.
3. Mr. Manish Vashishth, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that during the pendency of the present proceedings, in its decision in Subhadra Nehru vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others1, which was a case presenting a similar factual matrix, this court has held that consolidation proceedings in respect of Village : Chandanhula stand concluded. Mr. Vashishth submits that the present case is covered by the view taken in that matter.
4. Mr. Vashisht submits that the essential grievance raised in the present matter is that vide communication dated 18.08.2021 respondent No.6/South Delhi Municipal Corporation (now the Municipal Corporation of Delhi) has declined to process the petitioners application seeking approval of the lay-out plan for construction of a group housing project on the subject land in Village : Chandanhula, on the following purported ground :
In view of the above report your request for proposal of Group Housing on the Kh. Nos.532/1, 532/2, 531/2 of village Chandanholla can be processed after completion of consolidation procedure and the report from Revenue Dept/GNCTD clearly stating that plot u/r is falling in lal dora/extended lal dora.
(emphasis supplied)
5. It is submitted that the abovesaid communication is based upon a letter dated 06.08.2021 issued by the SDM to the Town Planning Department of respondent No. 6, setting-out therein the SDMs comments on the petitioners proposal. It is pointed-out that letter dated 06.08.2021 however bears-out the following : (a) that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land, being the recorded bhumidar in the revenue records; and (b) that no court case or acquisition proceedings are pending in respect of the subject land.
6. It is also pointed-out that in communication dated 06.08.2021, the SDM has said that consolidation proceedings in respect of Village : Chandanhula are still on-going and by reason thereof :
.. the current status of the land in Kh. No. 532/1 (13-6), 532/2 (0-15) and 531/2 (12-10) under Extended Abadi is not stable due to anomalies an (sic, and) inconsistencies found in consolidation process and dependent on the outcome of the correction process and final decision of the competent authority on the correction and Consolidation process of Village Chandanholla according to the relevant provisions of East Punjab Holding Act, 1948.
7. Mr. Vashisht however submits that as held by this court in Subhadra Nehru (supra), based upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Uppal Housing Private Limited & Ors.2, consolidation proceedings in respect of Village : Chandanhula are complete and there is no reason why land transactions should be put on hold awaiting fresh consolidation proceedings being conducted by the revenue authorities, if at all.
8. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel (Civil) appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel relies upon additional affidavits dated 24.03.2023 and 11.08.2023 filed by them to submit that considering the serious anomalies and lapses that are believed to have occurred in the earlier consolidation proceedings conducted in Village : Chandanhula, the Honble Lieutenant Governor has directed that the matter be referred to the Vigilance Department to examine the lapses in the consolidation proceedings that were conducted earlier-on in that village; and to affix responsibility on the concerned officials in that regard. It is submitted that furthermore, the Honble Lieutenant Governor has directed that registration of deeds/documents under the Registration Act, 1908 will remain suspended until further orders; and that fresh consolidation proceedings should be ordered as per section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948, after a detailed enquiry into the consolidation process.
9. However, as submitted on behalf of the petitioner, based upon a Division Bench decision in Uppal Housing (supra), in its judgement in Subhadra Nehru (supra) this court has taken the view that consolidation proceedings in respect of Village : Chandanhula were completed as far back as on 26.04.2003. This court has also observed that though certain inconsistencies and anomalies stated to have been noticed in such consolidation proceedings may have been referred to the Vigilance Department for action, and there is possibility of fresh consolidation proceedings being ordered, that cannot be basis for holding-up all transactions relating to that village endlessly.
10. This court is also persuaded to accept that the present case is covered by the principal point decided in Subhadra Nehru (supra), namely that consolidation proceedings in Village : Chandanhula stand concluded.
11. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this court, the present petition requires to be disposed-of based on the view taken by this court in Subhadra Nehru (supra), by directing the Town Planning Department of respondent No. 6 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) to process the petitioners application seeking approval of the lay-out plan for constructing a group housing project on Khasra Nos. 532/1, 532/2, 531/2 in Village : Chandanhula, on the premise that consolidation proceedings in respect of Village : Chandanhula are complete; and to decide that application expeditiously, in accordance with law.
12. The petition stands disposed-of, in the above terms.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
NOVEMBER 7, 2023
ak
1 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5958
2 LPA 573/2023 decided on 02.08.2023
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
W.P.(C) 1852/2022 Page 1 of 5