0

Occupant Not Entitled To Usurp Govt Land, Raise ‘Pucca’ Construction, When Under Mere Possession of Tehbazari Right : Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court ordered that mere possession of a Tehbazari right does not entitle the occupant to usurp the Government land or to raise ‘pucca’ construction over it. This was seen in the case of VED PRAKASH MANCHANDA v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENTBOARD & ORS (W.P.(C) 8206/2016) and the Judgement was presided over by the Coram of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH.

Facts of the Case-

A plea filed by one Ved Prakash Manchanda seeking directions on the authorities to regularise his long and continuous occupation in his favour in respect of premises of a property in city’s Madangir, by way of executing a Lease Deed or other document. In his case he contended that he was enjoying this site since 1990-91 as a Tehbazari site and the Respondents authorities used to collect License Fee, damages and penalty from time to time.

He argued that a Regularization Notice was received by him by the then Slum and J. J. Department, whereby he was called upon to pay the regularization charges within a period of 30 days. Thereafter, he had deposited the sum, however, despite the payment and completion of all other formalities, no Lease Deed was executed by the authorities.

Judgement

The Delhi High Court has ordered that mere possession of a Tehbazari right does not entitle the occupant to usurp the Government land or to raise ‘pucca’ construction over it. The Court noted that the petitioner was neither the owner nor tenant qua the land in question, rather was is an illegal and unauthorised occupant of the Government Land. It said, “Mere possession of a Tehbazari right does not entitle the occupant to usurp the Government land. Tehbazari right does not entitle the occupant to raise pucca construction. In the present case, record reveals that the Petitioner has encroached upon the public utility land and has raised pucca construction which cannot be permitted,”.

Furthermore the court dismissed the plea while directing the Respondents authorities to refund the amount deposited by the Petitioner, if any, after deducting the damage charges for using the said property. “The Respondents are further directed to take immediate steps to retrieve the possession of the property in dispute from the Petitioner being the Government land and further put the same to use for the benefit of public at large as per the permissible land use,” the Court said.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement review by Utkarsh Sahu.

Click here to view your Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat