C.K. Mahajan, J.@mdashThe petitioner challenges the action of the respondents which is proposed to be taken for demolition/removal of the shop at 160, Jhuggi Camp, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi which had been erected by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the aforesaid shop since 1971. A suit was filed by the petitioner in 1986 praying permanent injunction restraining the respondent from demolishing the said shop. The suit was withdrawn on a statement of the respondents that they had no intention to demolish the structure. Thereafter a suit was filed in 1999 for permanent injunction when respondents/NDMC started construction of boundary wall. The petitioner was not granted any site. Thereafter the petitioner withdrew the suit and filed the present writ petition.
3. The petitioner was served with a notice calling upon him to remove the unauthorised structure. The petitioner did not respond to the said notice and rushed to this court for relief. The occupation of the petitioner is of a trespasser/encroacher upon the public land. The petitioner admits that he does not have any valid title or interest in the said property, but claim to be in possession for a long period. The petitioner is not entitled to grant of any relief.
4. Reference may be had to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of
8. "On the merits, the position is absolutely clear. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court is undoubtedly very wide. Appropriate writs can be issued by the High Court under the said article even for purposes other than the enforcement of the fundamental rights and in that sense, a party who invokes the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 is not confined to cases of illegal invasion of his fundamental rights alone. But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words of the article clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be passed in favor of a party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right is illegally invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under Article 226. The narrow question which falls for our decision in the present appeals is whether the respondents can be said to have proved any legal right in respect of the properties of which they apprehended they would be dispossessed by the appellant."
5. There is no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.
