http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: DALJIT SINGH DALAL (DEAD)THROUGH LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/03/1997

BENCH: A.M. AHMADI, S.C. SEN, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.      This is  a  writ  petition  under  Article  32  of  the Constitution of  India filed  some time  in May  1993 by the original petitioner Daljit Singh Dalal in person. It is said that this  petition is  in  public  interest.  The  original petitioner died  soon after  the filing of the petition. The son of  the original  petitioner, Bajrang Singh (hereinafter referred to  as the  ‘petitioner’), has  argued the  present petition as a party in person.      Although the  petitioner Bajrang  Singh claims  to be a lawyer, the  petition does  not set  out either the facts or the  contention   very  clearly.  Apparently,  the  disputed premises belonging to the original petitioner and his family members consist  of Premises  Nos.2505, 2506 and 2670, Basti Punjabian, Subzi  Mandi, Delhi. According to the petitioner, on 13th  of  May,  1993,  portions  of  House  No.2670  were demolished by  the Municipal  Corporation. According  to the petitioner  his   father,  (that  is  to  say  the  original petitioner), his  daughter, daughter-in-law  and  her  three small children  were trapped on the second floor of the that house. Four  storeys of  that house  were demolished on 13th May, 1993.  The present  petitioner filed  a  writ  petition before the  Delhi High  Court on  that day  and obtained  an order for the rescue of his family members who were trapped. These members  were  rescued  on  14th  of  May,  1993.  The original petitioner was in a coma and was taken to hospital. After some days he died.      According to  the petitioner, the demolition was a mala fide act  on the  part of  the Municipal  Corporation at the instigation of  the fourth  respondent who  did not like the activities of  the  petitioner  and  his  father  in  giving shelter to  the widows  of sikhs  killed in the Delhi riots. The petitioner  has claimed in the petition compensation for the harassment  caused to  the rebuilding  a Satnami  Temple which, apparently, was establish in the demolished building. He has  also asked  for  payment  of  full  compensation  to himself. At  the hearing,  however, the petitioner said that he would not desire any compensation and he wanted action to be taken against the respondents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    There are  several disputed  questions of facts in this petition. The  Station House  Officer,  Subzi  Mandi  Police Station, Delhi, who is respondent No.8, has filed a counter- affidavit. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has also filed its counter-affidavit.  In these  affidavits, it  is pointed out that  there is  no public interest involved in this writ petition. When the premises in dispute were inspected by the officers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, it was found the  petitioner  and/or  his  father  had  made  substantial unauthorised and  illegal constructions  on this property by encroaching  upon   the   public   road/public   land.   The construction so  made was  obstruction the public land, that is to  say, the  road in front of the premises and consisted of a ground floor, mezzanine, first and second floors.      There  were   various  proceedings  taken  out  by  the petitioner and/or  his father before various courts in Delhi in  order   to  prevent  demolition  of  these  unauthorised constructions. On  or about 5.3.1993 the Additional District Judge, Delhi  dismissed Misc. No.193 of 1992 entitled Daljit Singh versus  M.C.D. by  his order  dated 5.3.1993.  In  the order he  inter alia,  observed  that  the  appellant,  (the original  petitioner   before  us),  had  made  large  scale unauthorised constructions  not only on the ground floor but on all  the floors.  He further said, "M.C.D. has obligation to demolish  all these unauthorised structures raised by the plaintiff in  the grab  of repair  or by  misuse of judicial process. The  initial structure allowed to the appellant was only one  garage of  15’ x  10’ and  an area of 20’ x 10’ in front of  this garage  and staircase.  All that exists apart from these  premises is unauthorised and must be demolished. The review petition is hereby dismissed."      Accordingly in  discharge of  its statutory obligations the Municipal  Corporation of  Delhi, with the assistance of police, removed  one covered  enclosure constructed  on  the public land after informing the occupants of that enclosure. On 13.5.1993,  the Municipal Corporation removed the illegal mezzanine, first  and second  floors standing on public road in front of Property No.2670. The stair case of the premises was not  demolished. The  petitioner and  his family members were duly informed about the action taken. Instead of coming out of  the premises they went to the back portion which was not touched  in any  manner.  The  younger  brother  of  the petitioner who  was a  lawyer was  informed by the Municipal Corporation that  in case  he wanted  to  shift  the  family members the authorities would give full assistance. However, he did  not  agree  to  shifting  the  family  members.  The respondents have  denied that  the stair case was blocked in any manner. On the contrary, they allege that the petitioner and/or his  family members  did not  allow the "malba" to be removed.      In the counter-affidavit of the Station House Officers, Subzi Mandi  Police Station, Delhi it is further pointed out that the original petitioner, Daljit Singh Dalal, was an old patient of septicemia and he was undergoing treatment at St. Stephen Hospital. He was discharged only on 3rd of May, 1993 from the  hospital but  he was  in an unconscious condition. The subsequent  death of  the  original  petitioner  is  not connected in  any manner  with the  demolition. He  has said that no harm or harassment was caused by the officials or by the police  to the  petitioner or  his family members. After the present  petitioner obtained  an order of the Delhi High Court on 13th of May, 1993 the police offered every help for the rescue  of the original petitioner on 14.5.1993 but this help was  refused by  the present  petitioner and his family members. Again  on  15th  of  May,  1993  fire  brigade  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

ambulance were  arranged by the local police for the purpose of removing the original petitioner. But his close relatives refused to  permit the removal of the original petitioner on the ground  that their family doctor had given the necessary medicine and they did not want the original petitioner to be removed. Again  on 16th  of May,  1993 the Government doctor was arranged.  It was  after  the  original  petitioner  was checked by  the Government  doctor that  he was brought down from the second floor and was sent to St. Stephen’s Hospital in  an   ambulance.  The  affidavits  also  mention  various litigations  which   have  been  launched  by  the  original petitioner in  various courts  in Delhi  in order to prevent the demolition of illegal constructions carried out by him.      There are  thus several  disputed questions of fact. We also fail  to see  any  public  interest  involved  in  this petition.  The  disputes  raised  by  the  petitioner  being factual disputes,  cannot be  examined in  a  writ  petition under Article  32 of  the  Constitution.  The  petition  is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.