Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Delhi High Court Quashes DDA Demolition Notice for Mehrauli Park, Asserts: Procedural Fairness Must Stand Intact

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has quashed a demolition notice issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which targeted unauthorized constructions in the Mehrauli Archaeological Park. The Court underscored the importance of procedural fairness, stating, “Principles of natural justice demand that those whose interests are adversely affected by an administrative action, must be given a chance to be heard.”

The bench, comprising the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula, delivered the judgment on 8th November 2023, in response to the pleas of several petitioners claiming ownership of properties within the park’s khasra No. 1151/3 of Village Mehrauli. The petitioners had challenged the DDA’s demolition order, arguing that it was unfairly singling out their properties without following due legal process.

The Court noted the complexities involved in the demarcation of land, which has been a subject of contention between the petitioners and the DDA. “The core of Petitioners’ grievances is the actual location of their properties, as depicted on the maps utilized by the authorities to carry out the demarcation,” Justice Narula observed. In view of this, the Court has directed the DDA to reissue the demolition notice, ensuring that all affected parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case, as mandated by the DDA Act.

The decision has significant implications for the ongoing efforts to conserve the heritage zone of Mehrauli. While the Court recognized the DDA’s responsibility to maintain the area, it emphasized that conservation efforts must not override the necessity of following the due process of law. The Court’s decision reaffirms the right of individuals to be heard before being deprived of their property, setting a precedent for procedural fairness in administrative actions.

The High Court has clarified that it has not examined the merits of the demarcation report dated 21st December 2021 and has left all rights and contentions of the parties open. This move is seen as a way to ensure that the intricate disputes over boundary delineations are resolved by competent authorities or civil courts, which are better equipped to handle such technical matters.

The ruling has been welcomed by the petitioners’ advocates as a triumph of justice and fair play. The DDA is expected to respond to the Court’s directions by initiating a new process that adheres strictly to the legal procedures established for such actions.

Date of Decision: 08 November, 2023

DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI VS  DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR 

Similar News