Delhi HC rejects farmers’ request for floodplain classes, imposes ₹ 5 thousand cost

The justice of Dhars Sharm In his order said, “Summing up, not only arrogantly detect accurate location, measurements, longitudinal and latitudinal positions of the relevant lesson over the subjects, but they also seem to be hit on the purchased land of the rural chakli, which obviously falls in the zone” O “, that is, Yamun -Prozhal plains, thereby causing a delay in the implementation of public projects referred to in this, entails huge national expenditures and losses of state income and its instrumental. Petiors have no right to continue to engage and possess any part of the subject of the Earth in great public interests ” The court said.

The court was Considering the petition for five petitioners who claimed that they and their predecessors, who are farmers and adhesive tapes, are legally owned by agricultural land located in the village of Chak-Chilli on the bank of the Yamun River British rule.

The requests relied on Jamabanda/income Records (for 2012-2013), issued by a Patrioli Hulk (a local government that keeps ownership) to demand ownership of the subject.

Petitioners argued that the Corporation of Transport of the National Capital, the Joint Enterprise of the Government of India and the States of Kharyan, Rajasthan and Uttar -Pradesh, develop a system of railway transport for NCT, despite the fact that the requests will be displaced from their home. The plaintiff filed an application for demarcation in front of the technical university and the collector of the purchase of land in order to delimit the acquired and not purchased land in the village of Chak-Chill.

Since the authorities did not respond to the representation of the requests, they went to the High Court, which was looking for a demarcation. During the speech of this petition, Delhi Development (DDA), together with the Delhi police, conducted a demand for demolition in the village, destroyed crops and removed farmers.

Thus, the requests have submitted this petition, which seeks to restrain the respondents to break the possession of objects and guide power not to demolish and eliminate cattle and culture. Petiors argued that they could not be displaced without a proper right and declared violations of Articles 14 (right to equality), 21 (right to life) and 300a (persons were not deprived of property other than the power of the law) of the Constitution.

Considering the facts of the case, the court believed that the requests did not demonstrate any legal right, property rights or interests over subject land. It said it With the exception of the “bald support” on the Jamaband’s record concerning 2012-13, Halqa Patwari, there is no specific protection as to where the relevant land is located. The court stated that The requests did not indicate the number of Hasra and the measurement of subject ownership.

“The requests will not only be able to record any site plan, but also any document that would show longitudinal and broad -like positions of the respective land plots,” the statement said.

He took note of the demarcation report submitted by DDA, which showed that officials from the SDM office, south-east, as well as DDA, and indicated that the purchased part of SDM, south-east Bighas 1 biswa was purchased award # 22/92 -93 of 19.06.1992, and also showed a detailed part of the size of 506 Bighas 18 Biswa. The court stated that when the entry shared with the request, they were unable to determine where the requests claim that their properties are.

Moreover, the court stated that the acquired land has since been transferred to the DDA for the construction of the Maur Park project, which apparently enters the area of ​​Yamun squares, where the authorities must carry out the plantation.

WhatThe half -organizing petitioners are obvious, because it is obvious that after the action was taken with demolition to eliminate unauthorized encroachment and construction, the requests tried to return the property without leaving the site and continuing to grow vegetables in nature“The court noticed.

He also noted that the dependence on Jamaband/income records is not a convincing proof of any claim for ownership or permits. He noted that a simple sporadic entry in income records is not evidence of the transfer of any name.

“This is clearly linked to the materials posted by the applicants that it is reported that, with the exception of a simple Jamabanda record for 2012-13, there are no other tangible documents that could justify the claim that they have to possess them in possession The land in their own rights. The court said.

Thus, the court rejected the petition and imposed the cost of Rs. 5000 on each of the applicant for being indulged by “gross abuse of the law.”

Title: Udaiveer & Ors. Against the Union of India and the ORS. (WP (C) 2504/2023)