The stair case of the premises was number demolished.
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 companystructions on this property by encroaching upon the public road public land.
According 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 number like the activities of the petitioner and his father in giving shelter to the widows of sikhs killed in the Delhi riots.
The petitioner and his family members were duly informed about the action taken.
Again on 16th of May, 1993 the Government doctor was arranged.
The subsequent death of the original petitioner is number companynected in any manner with the demolition.
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.
The affidavits also mention various litigations which have been launched by the original petitioner in various companyrts in Delhi in order to prevent the demolition of illegal companystructions carried out by him.
Four storeys of that house were demolished on 13th May, 1993.
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. Stephens Hospital in an ambulance.
The respondents have denied that the stair case was blocked in any manner.
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 trapped.
The son of the original petitioner, Bajrang Singh hereinafter referred to as the petitioner , has argued the present petition as a party in person.
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.
Apparently, the disputed premises belonging to the original petitioner and his family members companysist 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.
On 13.5.1993, the Municipal Corporation removed the illegal mezzanine, first and second floors standing on public road in front of Property No.2670.
These members were rescued on 14th of May, 1993.
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.
The petitioner has claimed in the petition companypensation for the harassment caused to the rebuilding a Satnami Temple which, apparently, was establish in the demolished building.
The companystruction so made was obstruction the public land, that is to say, the road in front of the premises and companysisted of a ground floor, mezzanine, first and second floors.
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 number want the original petitioner to be removed.
There were various proceedings taken out by the petitioner and or his father before various companyrts in Delhi in order to prevent demolition of these unauthorised companystructions.
The Station House Officer, Subzi Mandi Police Station, Delhi, who is respondent No.8, has filed a companynter affidavit.
On or about 5.3.1993 the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissed Misc.
He was discharged only on 3rd of May, 1993 from the hospital but he was in an unconscious companydition.
Accordingly in discharge of its statutory obligations the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, with the assistance of police, removed one companyered enclosure companystructed on the public land after informing the occupants of that enclosure.
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has also filed its companynter affidavit.
He has also asked for payment of full companypensation to himself.
Although the petitioner Bajrang Singh claims to be a lawyer, the petition does number set out either the facts or the companytention very clearly.
No.193 of 1992 entitled Daljit Singh versus M.C.D. by his order dated 5.3.1993.
In the companynter 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.
However, he did number agree to shifting the family members.
The original petitioner died soon after the filing of the petition.
On the companytrary, they allege that the petitioner and or his family members did number allow the malba to be removed.
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.
At the hearing, however, the petitioner said that he would number desire any companypensation and he wanted action to be taken against the respondents.
After some days he died.
In these affidavits, it is pointed out that there is numberpublic interest involved in this writ petition.
Instead of companying out of the premises they went to the back portion which was number touched in any manner.
The original petitioner was in a companya and was taken to hospital.
There are several disputed questions of facts in this petition.
Again on 15th of May, 1993 fire brigade and ambulance were arranged by the local police for the purpose of removing the original petitioner.
In the order he inter alia, observed that the appellant, the original petitioner before us , had made large scale unauthorised companystructions number only on the ground floor but on all the floors.
He has said that numberharm or harassment was caused by the officials or by the police to the petitioner or his family members.
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.
