Singh Dalal Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 276 (10 March 1997)
A.M. AHMADI, S.C. SEN, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
V. Manohar, J.
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.
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
members were rescued on 14th of May, 1993. The original petitioner was in a
coma and was taken to hospital.
some days he died.
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.
petitioner has claimed in the petition compensation for the harassment caused
to the rebuilding a Satnami Temple which, apparently, was establish in the demolished
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.