Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Judgment Pronounced on 20 January, 2017
+ LPA 654/2016
SUMITRA SAINI & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with Mr. Rishabh
Jetley, Advocate for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
1. The two appellants Smt. Sumitra Saini and Sh. Sandeep Saini filed the
present Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition bearing No. 10369/2016 filed by the appellants
titled “Sumitra Saini and Anr. Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.” for
setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 04.11.2016.
2. The relevant background is that on 29.06.2010, demarcation was
carried out by way of manual method concerning Khasra No. 2351/20 and
2352/20 in Village Khikri, Delhi. The said demarcation was challenged by
“Sh. Satish Kaushik and Others” in writ petition bearing No. 6380/2010,
which was disposed of vide order dated 18.03.2013 asking the authorities to
carry out a fresh demarcation by way of Total Station Method, a consent
order to which effect was also issued, which was thereby completed on
02.11.2015.
LPA No. 654/2016 Page 1 of 3
3. The appellant, thereafter, filed a writ petition bearing No. 9372/2015
for revival of the water body on the ground that since the fresh demarcation
dated 02.11.2015 was carried out as final, the water body situated on the land
of Khasra No. 2351/20 and 2352/20 is to be revived. A status report was
filed therein, stating that since the demarcation was complete, as conducted
on 10.05.2016, the parties were at liberty to challenge the said demarcation
report and the water body could not be revived out-rightly.
4. Thereafter, W.P.(C) No. 10369/2016 was filed challenging only the
power and authority to carry out the demarcation pursuant to the order dated
18.03.2013 but the demarcation report was not challenged.
5. Mr. N.S. Dalal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that the order dated 18.03.2013 has not been challenged as it was
a consent order, nor the demarcation dated 02.11.2015 was ever challenged.
He further contended that the learned Single Judge Furthermore, it was
submitted that the authority to carry out the demarcation on 10.05.2016 by
the requisite department was not permissible in view of the earlier
demarcation report dated 02.11.2015.
6. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1
contended that a matter relating to these demarcation reports is pending
before the concerned Civil Judge in a civil suit bearing No. 302/2011 titled
as “Hari Singh Saini vs. Deputy Commissioner (South) & Anr.” and if the
appellants so wish, they can seek impleadment in the suit before the Civil
Judge.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
LPA No. 654/2016 Page 2 of 3
8. Since admittedly, the matter is pending before the Civil Court in a
civil suit, the appropriate court or forum, for such directions as prayed for, is
that Civil Court in which the matter is already pending and therefore, it
would not at all be advisable for us to take any action in the matter. In our
opinion, such a course is not permissible both on account of limitations that
exist in the substantive law regulating the exercise of the jurisdiction to issue
a writ or order and the procedural provisions contained in the law of the
land. In this connection, it may be observed that one of the conditions
precedent for issuance of such writ or order is that no other legal remedy
should be available to the party seeking such writ or order. Therefore, for a
proper and harmonious functioning of the Courts in accordance with the law,
it is necessary that the Courts refrain themselves from exercising jurisdiction
in respect of matters already pending before another Court as it may result in
disregard of the provisions of law.
9. We are, therefore, in consonance with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge. Liberty is granted to the appellants to seek impleadment before
the Civil Judge where the civil suit is pending and seek appropriate relief in
accordance with law.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
JANUARY 20, 2017
gr
LPA No. 654/2016 Page 3 of 3