The Delhi High Court in the case Bal Kishan Gupta v. DDA observed that the Delhi Development Authority, DDA cannot carry out any demolition on its own whims and fancies and must issue show cause notice and adjudicate the reply or objections raised by a party before initiating such action.
The bench headed by Justice Jasmeet Singh in the case observed and has held that the respondent, DDA being the State, is required to follow principles of natural justice and cannot carry out any demolition on its own whims and fancies. Thus, before initiating the process, it is required to issue the show cause notice, call for reply, adjudicate the reply or objections and thereafter carry out any demolition.
The court in the case observed and has allowed the petition moved by one Bal Kishan Gupta and has restrained the DDA from demolishing his house situated in the city’s Karol Bagh area.
Further, the court observed and has restrained the DDA from dispossessing Gupta from the property, without following due process of law.
The bench headed by Justice Singh in the case observed and has stated that Gupta was in settled possession of the property with a registered sale deed in his favour, and hence, DDA’s action of carrying out demolition without the prior intimation or show cause notice to him was violative of principles of natural justice which cannot be permitted.
Adding to it, it has been claimed by Gupta that no show cause notice or intimation was given to him prior to the demolition, the DDA objected to the plea stating that the property was situated on a government land.
Further, the DDA claimed that it remained unchallenged that Gupta was not allowed to present his case before the authorities and thus, granted relief to him.
It has also been stated that the DDA failed to conclusively show that the land belonged to the government and that there was nothing on record to show that the property formed part of Nazul Land.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the title of the property is left to be adjudicated in proceedings before the appropriate forum, if and when initiated by the parties. Thus, the said fact remains that at the time the demolitions were carried out, the petitioner was in settled possession of the premises.
The counsel, Advocate Mr Sermon Rawat, Advocate Mr Vikas Rathee and Advocate Ms Aastha Vishwakarma appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate Mr Anish Dhingra, Advocate Mr Nakul Ahuja and Advocate Ms Rupinder Oberoi Dhingra represented the respondent.
