LI Network
Published on: November 09, 2023 at 11:30 IST
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has emphasized that the writ jurisdiction of a court does not extend to resolving complex boundary delineation disputes that require extensive scrutiny of documents, surveys, maps, and on-ground assessments.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula highlighted that such matters fall within the purview of specialized statutory authorities established under relevant land statutes enacted by the State legislature.
These bodies possess the necessary technical expertise to navigate the intricacies of land demarcation and are authorized to address disputes and objections from concerned parties.
The court expressed its constitutional limitations and the nature of jurisdiction when dealing with technical assessments in such cases.
This perspective was outlined while addressing a set of petitions from individuals claiming ownership of properties in Delhi’s Mehrauli village.
The litigants contested the demolition actions taken by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to safeguard the heritage of the Mehrauli Archaeological Park.
They argued that the DDA’s demolition orders primarily targeted unauthorized constructions near Ladha Sarai village and did not extend to their properties.
The bench stressed that determining intricate technical matters, including the interpretation of maps and analysis of geographical data, goes beyond the conventional role of the court when exercising writ jurisdiction.
As a result, the court could not affirm the petitioners’ status as property owners or occupants, particularly in light of the DDA’s opposing evidence.
The court directed the petitioners to present their case before the competent authority or civil courts, which possess the statutory mandate to resolve such matters. However, the court did quash the demolition notice issued to the petitioners due to the lack of mandated intimation as per the provisions of the DDA Act.
The DDA was instructed to initiate the process afresh, ensuring that all petitioners have a fair opportunity to be heard within three months from the date of the ruling.
CASE TITLE: DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
