Ved Ram v. Bdo and Ors

ORDER o

18.11.2011

¶1Learned counsel for the petitioner contends regarding opening of another door on the western wall of Plot No. 273, in Village Kanganheri, Delhi, towards the gaon sabha land, forming part of khasra No.14g, respondents No. 3 to 6 had filed a civil suit in the year 1986 and since they could not obtain any interim relief, therefore, clandestinely they got petitioner's name deleted from affay of parties in the said suit for declaration and thereafter, approached the Block Development officer, who vide order dated 06.06.2005, had acceded to the aforesaid request of respondents No. 3 to 6 and thereafter, respondents No. 3 to 6 had withdrawn the said suit on

26.07.2005.

¶2It is next contended by counsel for the petitioner that when the W.P.(C) No.6505/20L1 Page 1 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. dl" -( il \ Y petitioner came to know about it, he filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents No. 3 to 6 herein to restrain them from opening a door on the western side of their house towards the gaon sabha land and in the said suit, interim relief though was declined to the petitioner, but it would not estop the petitioner from challenging the order of 06.06.2005 of the Block Development Officer concerned.

¶3The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Financial Commissioner in the impugned order has refused to set aside the order of the Block Development Officer of 06.06.2005 by observing that it is a simple Reforms Act, cannot be invoked against a simple leffer.

¶4concededly, letter of 06.06.2005 of the concemed Block Development Officer is the subject matter of petitioner's suit for permanent injunction and therefore, the petitioner is precluded from re-agitating the very same issue in this writ petition.

¶5This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to urge the issue raised herein, in the suit for permanent injunction ./ filed bv him. \- Dismissed as infructuous. IL GAUR, J W.P.(C) No.6605/2011 Page2

?,Z- $-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(c) 660s/20rr VED RAM Through: BDO AND ORS. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar. Advocate versus ..... Respondents Mr. Atul Agarwal, Advocate for Mr. Jagdeep Sharma, Advocate ii1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR