Delhi District Court
Cnr No. Dlwt01-006677-2016 vs Delhi Development Authority on 3 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
1.PPA No. 16/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-006677-2016
Sh. Paramjeet Singh,
S/o Sh. Pritam Singh,
3400, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi .......Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi . . . . . . Respondent
Date of Institution : 15.09.2016
Date of hearing arguments : 22.06.2020
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2020
AND
2.PPA No. 11/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-006305-2016
Sh. Om Prakash
S/o Sh. Dhanpat Lal,
R/o H.No. 3227, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi .......Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
(Through its Vice Chairman),
Vikas Sadan, INA Market,
New Delhi
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 1 of 38
2. The Estate Officer (West)
Delhi Development Authority,
Subhash Nagar Crossing,
New Delhi ...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 02.09.2016
Date of hearing arguments : 22.06.2020
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2020
AND
3.PPA No. 12/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-006568-2016
Sh. Joginder Singh
S/o Sh. Ami Lal,
R/o 3369, Ranjeet Nagar,
South Patel Nagar, New Delhi .......Appellant
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan INA,
New Delhi
2. Estate Officer (West) (Land)
Delhi Development Authority
Subhash Nagar, New Delhi-18
3. Delhi Development Authority
Commissioner Land,
Vikas Sadan INA,
New Delhi . . . . . . Respondents
Date of Institution : 09.09.2016
Date of hearing arguments : 22.06.2020
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2020
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 2 of 38
AND
4.PPA No. 13/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-006676-2016
Sh. Mahinder Singh (Now Deceased) Through LR
Sh. Balwant Singh
S/o Late Mahinder Singh,
3400, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi .......Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi . . . . . . Respondent
Date of Institution : 15.09.2016
Date of hearing arguments : 22.06.2020
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2020
AND
5.PPA No. 14/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-006679-2016
Sh. Praveen Kamra
S/o Late Dwarka Nath,
3400, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi .......Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi . . . . . . Respondent
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 3 of 38
Date of Institution : 15.09.2016
Date of hearing arguments : 22.06.2020
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2020
AND
6.PPA No. 15/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-006675-2016
Sh. Ramavtar (Now Deceased) Through LR
Sh. Brij Mohan
S/o Late Ramavtar,
3400, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi .......Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi . . . . . . Respondent
Date of Institution : 15.09.2016
Date of hearing arguments : 22.06.2020
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2020
AND
7.PPA No. 17/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-006674-2016
Sh. Jai Gopal Bedi
S/o Sh. Durga Dass,
3400, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi .......Appellant
Versus
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 4 of 38
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi . . . . . . Respondent
Date of Institution : 15.09.2016
Date of hearing arguments : 22.06.2020
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2020
AND
8.PPA No. 18/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-006678-2016
Sh. Jagjeet Singh
S/o Pritam Singh,
3400, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi .......Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi . . . . . . Respondent
Date of Institution : 15.09.2016
Date of hearing arguments : 22.06.2020
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2020
Appearances:
Mr. N. P. Singh, Advocate for appellants in PPA Nos. 12/2016, 13/2016,
14/2016, 15/2016, 16/2016 and 17/2016
Sh. R. K. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant in PPA Nos. 11/2016 and
12/2016
Sh. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel along-with Sh. Anupam
Sharma, Mr. Jatin Bhatia and Mr. Dev Vrat, Advocates for the
respondent(s).
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 5 of 38
JUDGMENT
1. This common Judgment shall decide the aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PP Act'), which raise somewhat common questions of law and fact and can be conveniently disposed off altogether. However, as during the course of arguments, Mr. R.K. Bedi, Ld. Counsel for the appellant in PPA No. 11/2016 stated that the case of his client and that of the appellant in PPA No.13/2016 are altogether on a different footing, I shall separately give findings in this Judgments with respect to the said two cases but for now the PPA No. 16/2016 titled as 'Paramjeet Singh v. DDA' is agreed to be taken up as the main case.
2. The present eight appeals assail an order dated 22.08.2016 passed by Ld. Estate Officer, DDA, whereby the appellants have been held to be unauthorized occupants in respect of land measuring 845 Sq. Yards falling Khasra No. 3400, Ranjit Nagar, Site No.1, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi and thereby ordered to vacate the said property within 15 days from the date of the communication of the said order, failing which the appellants have been directed to be evicted from the said property by such force as may be necessary.
IMPUGNED COMMON EVICTION ORDER
3. In order to appreciate the real controversy in question the impugned order dated 22.08.2016 (date is written as 02.08.2016 in the impugend order and in some appeals also it is written as RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 6 of 38 02.08.2016) is reproduced as under:-
"A request was received from Dy. Director (S&S)II DDA for initiating eviction proceedings against Sh. Paramjeet Singh and otehrs in respect of property No. 3400, measuring 845 Sq. Yards, Ranjit Nagar, Site-1, South Patel Nagar as Shri Paramjeet Singh and others are unauthorized occupants of the said premises.
2. The Estate Officer (WZ) directed Shri Paramjeet Singh and others to produce evidence in support of ownership of land and to appear before the court of Estate Officer (LM) WZ on 10.08.2010. Several opportunities were given on 17.9.2010, 22.10.2010, 26.11.2010, 31.12.2010, 8.2.2011, 15.3.2011, 29.4.2011, 7.6.2011, 29.7.2011, 30.9.2011, 4.11.2011, 29.11.2011, 30.12.2011, 31.1.2012, 2.3.2012, 10.4.2012, 15.5.2012, 13.7.2012, 17.8.2012, 21.9.2012, 19.10.2012, 11.12.2012, 15.2.2013, 22.3.2013, 7.5.2013, 9.7.2013, 13.8.2013, 17.9.2013, 29.10.2013, 13.12.2013, 17.1.2014, 18.2.2014, 7.3.2014, 25.4.2014, 9.5.2014, 27.5.2014, 1.7.2014, 18.7.2014, 12.8.2014, 9.9.2014, 28.10.2014, 25.11.2014, 26.12.2014, 30.1.2015, 10.3.2015, 17.4.2015, 24.4.2015 & 14.7.2015 to defend the case. In compliance of the order issued by Hon'ble District Judge (West), Tis Hazari Court, the notice under Section 4(i) issued to all the unauthorized occupants before taking any decision. The notices under Section 4(i) were issued to all the 16 no. unauthorized occupants to attend the Court on 2.8.2016 which were duly received by them. The proceedings were attended by 5 No. respondents and one advocate on behalf of the respondent Shri Om Parkash. The reply/document submitted by them are not shown any ownership right on the property.
3. While going through the document submitted by the Respondent earlier and now 2.8.16, it is seen that the respondents only submitted copy of the Property Tax Receipt, Work License of MCD and Ration Card relating to the plot No. 3400 Ranjit Nagar on 29.4.2011. No document of ownership/title of the land has been submitted inspite of several opportunities afforded as stated in the above para (underlined portion emphasized).
4. Earlier Shri Inderjeet Singh, Asstt. Director (S&S)II, DDA submitted documents in support of the claim of the DDA that the land in question has been transferred to DDA by Ministry of Rehabilitation vide site No.1 in the list/plots handed over to DDA RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 7 of 38 in South East and West Patel Nagar. The physical possession was taken by DDA on 8.5.84. A copy of the handing over/taking over was also submitted on 30.9.2011.
5. During the hearing on 31.1.2012, photocopies of the documents i.e. Property Tax Receipts, Work License of MCD, Ration Card submitted by the Respondent were handed over to Surveyor (S&S)II, DDA for verification.
6. Shri Surender Kumar, Dy. Director (S&S)II, DDA vide his letter No. F1(03)12/S&S-II/DDA145 dt. 14.5.12 intimated that the documents i.e. photocopies of the Property tax receipt, work license and ration card do not show any ownership right on this Govt land. The land under reference i.e. site No.1 has been transferred to DDA from the Ministry of Rehabilitation under Package Deal and further requested eviction of unauthorized encroachers from this Govt land.
7. Sh. Subhahs Chander, Surveyuor (S&S)II, DDA in his written statement recorded in the court on 07.01.2014 has stated that land at 3400, Ranjit Nagar, measuring 845 sq. yards is a Govt. land and also given the names of 16 unauthorized encroachers. The details of unauthorized occupants is as under:
Sr. No. Name Work /
Residence
1 Sh. Paramjeet Singh
S/o Shri Pritam
Singh
running radiator
workshop
2 Shri Mahender
Singh
Running Vindi Motor
Workshop
3 Smt. Kanta W/o Shri
Babulal
Residence
4 Sh. Jagmohan Singh
S/o Late Sh.
Niranjan Singh
Running K.K.
Radiator Workshop
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 8 of 38
5 Sh. Bhajan Singh
Tea Shop
6 Sh. Paramjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Niranjan
Singh
now Shri Ranunak
Singh (closed)
7 Sh. Ram Avtar
Aggarwal S/o Late
Sh. Munsi Ram
8 Sh. Surjeet Singh
S/o Late Sh.
Gurbachan Singh
9 Sh. Jai Gopal
Running Anil Motors
10 Sh. Vinay Bedi
Godown
11. Sh. Jagjeet Singh
S/o Shri Pritam
Singh
Running Automobile
Workshop
12. Sh. Palvinder Singh
Running Automobile
Workshop
13. Sh. Parveen Kamra
S/o Late Sh. Dwarka
Nath
and Sh. Rajeev
Kamra S/o Late Sh.
Dwarka Nath
Residence
14. Sh. Umrao Singh
Yadav
Residence
15. Sh. Om Prakash
covered with
boundary wall
column
16. Sh. Joginder Singh
S/o Sh. Ami Lal
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 9 of 38
Residence
8. I have perused from the record and find that DDA has proved the ownership of the land and also submitted documents i.e. list of land/plots handed over to DDA in South, East and West Patel Nagar, New Delhi vide letter No.1(20)/Survey/CSC/84 dated 25.6.1984 issued by Govt. of India, Department of Rehabilitation, Settlement Wing, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi addressed to Addl. Commissioner (Land & Management), DDA, Vikas Minar, New Delhi regarding physical possession of land in East and West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. In view of the said documents and written statement given by Shri Subhash Chander Surveyor, S&S-II, DDA, the land at 3400 Ranjit Nagar, Site No.1, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi is a public premises.
9. In Writ Petition(C)1752/2015 titled as "South Patel Nagar (9 Block) & Ranjit Nagar Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. DDA & Others, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has directed to finalize the eviction proceedings against the encroachers and other occupants of the public land being plot No. 3400, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi in a time bound manner vide orders dated 23.02.2015.
10. In view of the documents and evidence placed on record, I hold the noticee to be in unauthorized occupation of public premises/the land belonging to DDA/Govt bearing No. 3400, measuring 845 sq. yards, Ranjit Nagar, Site No.1, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section 5(1) of the PP Act, 1971, I hereby order that the said Shri Paramjeet Singh and all other unauthorized occupants who may be in unauthorized occupation of public premises/land or any part thereof are ordered to vacate the said premises/land within 15 days from the date of communication of this order. In the even of refusal or failure to comply with this order within the stipulated period, the said Shri Paramjeet and all other person concerned, as mentioned above in para-7 are liable to be evicted from the said premises, if need be, by use of such force as may be necessary."
BACKGROUND FACTS
4. The case of the appellant Paramjeet Singh is that previosly RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 10 of 38 the then Ld. Estate Officer passed an order dated 30.06.2010 under Section 5 (1) of the PP Act, whereby the appellants had been directed to vacate the premises within 15 days of the date of such order. The said order was challenged by the appellants on the ground that no Show Cause Notice had been issued to them as envisaged under Section 4(1) of the PP Act. Thereafter, no order was received by the Ld. Estate Officer but after lapse of sufficient time, a Show Cause Notice dated 12.02.2014 was served under Section 4(1) and 7(3) of the PP Act whereby the appellant(s) were given final opportunity to produce evidence in support of their objections and to appear before the Ld. Estate Officer on 18.02.2014. It is stated that objections were filed on 25.04.2014 and ultimately a common order dated 07.08.2015 was passed by the Ld. Estate Officer whereby the appellant Paramjeet Singh and others were held to be "unauthorized occupant" in respect of government land/property in question taken over by DDA on 08.05.1984 and directed the appellant to vacate the premises within 15 days thereof. The said order was challenged by the appellant Paramjeet Singh and others under Section 9 of the PP Act and the appeal was allowed vide Judgment/order dated 12.05.2016, whereby the respondent-DDA was directed to take action against the appellant Paramjeet Singh and others after issuance of requisite notice as per Section 4 of the PP Act.
5. The case of the appellant Paramjeet Singh in appeal bearing PPA No. 16/2016 is that consequent to the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge (West), Delhi, a Show RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 11 of 38 Cause Notice dated 11.07.2017 under Section 4 (I) of the PP Act was issued calling upon him to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be passed and further, it directed the appellant to appear in person or through Authorized Representative on 02.08.2016. The following ground for eviction was specified inthe notice:
"Unauthorized encorachment in Government Land taken by DDA on 08.05.1984. The land mentioned in the schedule i.e. land measuring 845 Sq. Yards use bearing Kahsra No./Property NO. 3400, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi belong to Union of India and is uner the Management and Control of DDA"
6. It is stated that the appellant Paramjeet Singh appeared before the Ld. Estate Officer on 02.08.2016 and sought time to file response but the Ld. Estate Officer stated that the proceedings before him were continuous proceedings emanating from the previous notice dated 12.02.2014, and also considering that the appellant Paramjeet Singh elected to adopt the previous objections filed on the record dated 25.04.2014 (regarding which letter dated 02.08.2016 was placed on the record by him reiterating his earlier objections), the Ld. Estate Officer proceeded further and passed the impugned order dated 22.08.2016.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
7. The impugned order dated 22.08.2016 is assailed interalia on the grounds that the Ld. Estate Officer did not go through the objections-cum-reply dated 25.04.2014 and failed to consider the copies of property tax receipts, Work license of MCD and Ration Card placed on record by the appellant Paramjeet Singh to show his RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 12 of 38 continuous possesson; and that the Ld. Estate Officer failed to appreciate that the land in question had been acquired by the Delhi Administration pursuant to the Notification dated 14.08.1970 but the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non declaration of Award within stipulated period as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, referred as 'LA Act'); and that as the State Government had not taken physical possession of the land in question, a portion thereof had been let out to him by erstwhile owner Sh. Narain Singh on a fixed monthly rental; and that since then the appellant has been running his Radiator shop from the same; and that the Ld. Estate Officer failed to appreciate that the property in question was not a "public premises" nor the appellant was occupying the premsies in the nature of an "unauthorized occupant" within the scope and ambit of the PP Act and the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating that more than 12 years had elapsed since the time the appellant has been in possession of the premises and no recovery of possession can be effected as the appellant has become owner of the premises by way of adverse possession.
PPA NO. 12/20168. Briefly stated, the appellants are the legal representatives of one Mahender Singh. It is stated that Mahender Singh expired on 31.12.2015 and in response to notice under Section 4(1) of the PP Act dated 11.07.2017 issued by the Ld. Estate Officer, the attention of the latter was invited to the earlier objections dated 25.04.2014 filed by the deceased predecessor-in-interest and interalia it was pointed out that RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 13 of 38 late Sh. Mahender Singh left behind a Will dated 17.06.2015 whereby the legal heirs became owner and in possession of shop in question. The impugned common eviction order dated 22.08.2016 is assailed on the same contextual and legal backgrounds as in the main case bearing PPA No. 16/2016.
PPA NO. 13/20169. The case of the appellant is that his wife Smt. Saroj Bala is owner and in possession of proprety No. 3369, Ranjit Nagar, South Patel Nagar, Delhi by virtue of Sale Deed dated 16.02.2015 executed in her favour. It is stated that Smt. Saroj Bala had purchased the said property from her husband, and the latter had purchased it from one Ami Lal vide Sale documents dated 23.04.2002, while Ami Lal had purchased it from Sharwan Kumar Mutreja S/o Sh. Narain Dass by virtue of Sale document dated 17.05.1995 who bought the property from the earlier owner Smt. Radha Devi wife of late Sh. Ganga Prasad vide sale documents dated 20.04.1995. The impugned common Eviction order dated 22.08.2016 is assailed on ditto grounds interalia pointing out that property bearing No. 3369 has no connection with the property falling in Khara No. 3400, Site-I, Ranjit Nagar, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
PPA NO. 14/201610. Likewise, this appeal has assailed the impugned common Eviction order dated 22.08.2016 also on the ground that since no Award was passed in terms of the provisions of 'LA Act' and the State RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 14 of 38 Government had not taken possession of the property in question in terms of Notification dated 14.08.1970, the erstwhile owner Sh. Narain Singh had given a piece of land in question to the father of the appellant Sh. Dwarka Nath in the year 1969 on a fixed monthly rental; and that late Sh. Dwarka Nath had died on 06.07.2007 leaving behind him as one of the legal heirs apart from two other sons, namely Rajiv Kamra and Praveen Kamra and two daughters Neeta Arora and Nagina Oberoi; and that the appellant has since then been in actual and continuous physical possession of the premises let out in Field No. 898/489 min in the revenue village Shadipur, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that documents filed on record by the appellant had not been considered by the Ld. Estate Officer while passing the impugned common Eviction order.
PPA NO. 15/201611. In the instant appeal, the legal heirs of one Ram Awtar are assailing the impugned common Eviction order dated 22.08.2016 claiming that Sh. Ram Awtar expired on 16.01.2016 leaving behind legal heirs viz. Brij Mohan Aggarwal, Jag Mohan Aggarwal and Kamal Aggarwal as his three sons and Manju Gupta as daugther and the deceased Ram Awtar has been in possession of the premises as a tenant under the erstwhile owner Sh. Narain Singh who had given a piece of land to deceased Ram Awtar in the year 1961 at a fixed monthly rental and since then, their father has been in actual and continuous possession of the shop in question, which falls in Field No. 898/489 min in revenue village Shadipur, Ranjit Nagar.
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 15 of 38 PPA NO. 17/201612. In a nutshell, the appellant Jai Gopal Bedi also agitates that his objections dated 25.04.2014 on the record were not considered by the Ld. Estate Officer; and that Ld. Estate Officer failed to consider that the appellant has been in actual and continuous possession of the shop falling under the land in question since 1981 on a fixed monthly rental from the erstwhile owner Sh. Narain Singh.
PPA NO. 11/201613. The appellant Om Prakash claims that he has been sole and exclusive owner of the built-up portion of a free hold property bearing municipal No. 3352 of land measuring 55 Sq. Yards with terrace roof rights & super structure out of total measuring 110 Sq. Yards forming part of Khasra No. 409/407/7/1 situated in the area of village Shadipur in the abadi of Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi 110008, which he had purchased from erstwhile owner, namely Sh. Gurdev Singh Kainth S/o Late Sh. Gurbax Singh R/o 3552, Ranjit Ngar, New Delhi by virtue of registered sale deed dated 15.10.2008. It is also stated that Sh. Gurdev Singh Kainth had purchased the property from Smt.Mahinder Kaur wife of late Sh. Amrik Singh by virtue of sale deed dated 19.08.2003. It is stated that property bearing No. 3352 has no connection with the property / premises / land falling in Khasra No. 3400 measuring 845 Sq. Yards, Site No.I, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi and, therefore, it is claimed that impugned order dated 22.08.2016 is nonest in law as it has not taken note of his detailed objections/reply dated 28.07.2016 filed on the record with the Ld. RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 16 of 38 Estate Officer.
PPA NO. 18/201614. The appellant Jagjeet Singh like the other appellants assails the impugned order dated 22.08.2016 claiming that his objections dated 22.04.2015 on the record had not been taken into consideration by the Ld. Estate Officer and it is claimed that he has been in lawful and continuous occupation of the premises being a shop at a monthly rental since 1981, which had been let out by the erstwhile owner Sh. Narain Singh as the proceedings under the "LA Act"
pursuant to Notification dated 14.08.1970 were never initiated nor culminated in any Award aa its possession was never taken by the State Government.
REPLY BY THE DDA
15. Needless to state that the DDA has filed replies in each of the aforesaid appeals and has opposed the same. Suffice to state that in reference to provisions of Section 4 of the PP Act, it is stated that the proceedings before the Ld. Estate Officer are summary in nature and different from the nature of proceedings before a Civil Court, and a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 22.08.2016 would show that the Ld. Estate Officer issued a Show Cause Notice under Section 4(I) dated 11.07.2016 to all the parties pursuant to previous order dated 12.05.2016 by the then Ld. District & Sessions Judge (West)/Appellate Court and a bare perusal of the impugned order would show that umpteen number of opportunities were given to the parties to file their RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 17 of 38 objections and lead their evidence, pursuant to which the respondents appeard before the Ld. Estate Officer lastly on 02.08.2016 and Ld. Estate Officer passed a sepcific order that the premises in question was a "public premises" and the noticees/appellants were in "unauthorized occupation" thereof; and that the Ld. Estate Officer rightly concluded that the DDA has been able to prove the ownership of the land by virtue of Government of India letter dated 25.06.1984 whereas the appellants have failed to satisfy that they were in any manner lawful occupants in the premises/land in question. Reference is also invited to Writ Petition (Civil) 1752/2015 filed by the South Patel Nagar (9 block) and Ranjit Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. DDA & Ors., wherein Hon'ble Judges of the Delhi High Court vide order dated 23.02.2015 directed to finalise the eviction proceedings against the encroachers and other occupants on the subject property in a time bound manner. As regards the appellants in PPA No. 11/2016 & 12/2016, it is stated that the appellants have no locus standi to challenged the impugned order and even otherwise their claims are based on false and fabricated documents.
ARGUMENTS
16. Sh. R.K. Bedi, ld. Counsel for the appellant in PPA No. 11/2016 made a brief submission to the effect that the property belonging to the appellants in PPA Nos. 11/2016 and 12/2016 have no connection with the subject property falling in Khasra No. 3400, Site No.1, Ranjit Nagar, South Patel, Nagar, Delhi, and thus it is urged that the impugned show cause notice and the common eviction order is not RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 18 of 38 enforceable against them. Sh. N.P. Singh, the ld. Counsel for the remaining appellants vehemently urged that the Ld. Estate Officer issued a defective Show Cause Notice dated 11.07.2016 holding appellants as "unauthorized encroachers" on the government land purportedly taken by the DDA on 08.05.1984 and failing to appreciate that the property in question was neither "public premises" nor the appellants were "unauthorized occupants" for which separate recourse is available under the PP Act. Much was urged that order dated 22.08.2016 was a cut and paster version of earlier order dated 07.08.2015 identical in nature except for the issuance of notice under Section 4(I) dated 11.07.2016. It was vehemently urged that although the Notification under Section 6 of the "LA Act" was issued on 17.08.1970 in respect of Khasra No. 3400 in column No.3 recorded as 898/489 min, the property was never fully acquired as no Award was passed nor physical possession thereof was ever taken in terms of Section 9, 11, 11A & 12 of the LA Act. It has further been urged that provsions of Section 15 and 22 of the Delhi Development Act , 1957( for short 'DDA Act') were not complied with and, therefore, the subject property did not become "public premises" in terms of Section 2(e)(3)(ii) of the DDA Act.
17. Per contra the ld. Standing Counsel assisted by other Counsel for DDA urged that as per the documents on record, the Govt. Of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation Settlement Wing, vide its letter dated 25.06.1984 transferred the subject property i.e. a piece of land to DDA on payment of sum of Rs. 30 crores under a package deal and there RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 19 of 38 was no question of applicability of Section 11 and 11A of the LA Act. It is urged that Section 11 or 11A of LA Act is not applicable to land which was already acquired and belonged to the Govt of India. Suffice to state, the ld. Standing Counsel for DDA has supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. Estate Officer.
DECISION
18. I have given my thoughful consideration to the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the parties at the Bar who joined through video conferencing. I have also perused the relevant record of the appeal as also the entire record of Ld. Estate Officer. I have also meticulously gone through the written submisisons filed by the parties.
PUBLIC PREMISES
19. First thing first, I shall deal with the plea by the appellants that the property in question is not "public premises". Section 2(g)(3) of the PP Act provides that the expression "public premises" in relation to the National Capital Territory of Delhi means -
(ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development Authority, whether such premises are in the possession of, or leased out by, the said Authority;
20. The expression 'belonging to' came up for discussion in the case of Nandram vs. Union of India, 2000 SCC OnLine Del 901, and a reference was invited to 'Stround's Judicial Dictionary' where the word "belonging" has been defined as "property 'belonging' to a person, having two general meanings, (1) ownership, and/or (2) the absolute RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 20 of 38 right of user". The legal purport of such expression was dealt with as under :-
"By way of illustration, it has been stated that a road may be said with perfect propriety to belong to a man who has the right to use it as of right, although the soil does not belong to him. In Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur and another, AIR 1965 SC 1923, Apex Court held that though the expression "belonging" no doubt is capable of denoting an absolute title, it is nevertheless not confined to connoting that sense. That word could signify even possession of an interest less than that of full ownership. Scheme of the Act is that it confers on the Estate Officer power to issue notice to person, who are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises to show cause, why an order of eviction should not be made. "Unauthorized occupation" under the Act, as defined in Section 2 (g) in relation to any public premises means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever."
21. In the light of the said proposition of law, reverting to the instant case, I have no hesitation in holding the subject property is 'belonging' to the DDA and the Ld. Estate Officer has rightly relied on letter No. 4(19)/78-SS.II(Vol.II) of the Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation, Government of India dated 02.09.1982, whereby the Government of India under a "package deal" transferred some un- RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 21 of 38 utilized lands within the Urban and Urbanizational Limits of Delhi/New Delhi under the charge of Department of Rehabilitation to the Delhi Development Authority viz. a total 1020 acres of property/lands to the DDA on a payment of Rs. 30 Crores and the details of the 'surveyed' and 'un-surveyed lands' were given in Annexure 'A' and Annexure 'B'. Para (3) of the said letter dated 02.09.1982 reflects that the details of the lands shown in the Annexures 'A' & 'B' were based on the result of various joint surveys carried out by the officials of the Department of Rehabilitation and the DDA from 1978 onwards. A bare perusal of Annexure 'A' titled "Total Undeveloped Lands" vide serial No.8 shows that in so far as "Patel Nagar - East, West and South" is concerned total land measuring 10.40 acres was transferred to the Delhi Development Authority.
22. Further, there can hardly be any challenge to the findings of the Ld. Estate Officer that vide letter No. 1(20)/Survey/CSC/84 dated 25.06.1984 issued by the Department of Rehabilitation, Settlement Wing, Government of India at Jaisalmer House, New Delhi, addressed to the Land Commissioner (Land & Development), DDA, physical possession of land in "East, South and West Patel Nagar" had been transferred on 08.05.1984 and the tabular annexures to the subsequent notification dated 25.06.1984 vide serial No. 1 shows that the lands behind Bungalow Plot No. 33 to 36, South Patel Nagar measuring 845 Sq. yards on inspection were found to have been encroached with temporary huts, khokhas and workshops and the remarks column read "occupied by D. S. Automobiles, Parko Motors, Gurcharan Automobiles, RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 22 of 38 Niranjan Automobiles Birdi Motors, Chandro, Pyare Singh, Bachchan Singh, Dwarka Dass, Babu Lal, Umrao Singh and others., which incidentally are some of the appellants before us.
23. It is pertinent to mention here that the property in question was subject matter of litigation in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16/2009 titled Paramjit Singh vs. MCD & Others and perusal of the record of the Ld. Estate Officer would show that an order dated 20.10.2009 was passed by Hon'ble Ms. Gita Mittal, Judge, High Court of Delhi, that would show that initially the MCD had laid claim over the property in question and the appellant Paramjeet Singh and others were sought to be evicted by recourse to proceedings under the PP Act but during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the DDA intervened and referred to the aforesaid letter by the Government of India dated 02.09.1982 and the subsequent notification regarding handing over of the possession on 08.05.1984 confirmed vide letter dated 25.06.1984.
24. In para (11) of the judgment, it is recorded that the MCD had merely went to the subject land for an official visit and the DDA completely disassociated itself from the stand taken by the MCD interalia assailing locus standi of the MCD and vide para (12) of the said judgment, the Writ Petition was disposed of holding that the documents placed on record by the petitioners in the nature of continuous possession and payment of property tax did not create any right, title or interest in the subject property with the direction to the DDA to take actions against the petitioners as per the due process of RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 23 of 38 law. It is also borne out from the voluminous record of the case that a review petition No. 471/2009 was filed by the petitioners and the same also came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2009 by the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of Delhi.
25. It is in the said context that an earlier order dated 30.06.2010 was passed under Section 5(1) of the PP Act but for some inexplicable reasons, the DDA kept the proceedings in limbo for an inordinate long period of time, which probably led to filing of another Writ Petition bearing No. 1752/2015 titled South Patel Nagar (IX Block) & Ranjit Nagar Residents Welfare Association vs. DDA & Others, in which, it was claimed that the appellants herein and some other persons had encroached upon a piece of land which was meant for a "park" and the same came to be disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2015 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait, Judge, High Court of Delhi, whereby the DDA was directed to expedite the disposal of the Eviction proceedings pending against the appellants under the PP Act.
26. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that consequent to the notification dated 03.09.1970 issued under Section 6 & 7 of the LA Act, and presumably subsequent proceedings under the LA Act, the subject property viz. 3400 measuring 845 Sq. yards (898/489 min) vested with the Chief Commissioner of Delhi i.e. Central Government or the Provincial Government of Delhi free from all encumbrances. The land did not cease to be property of the Central Government in the absence of delivery of possession or non taking of RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 24 of 38 actual or physical possession. It, therefore, continued to be the property of the Central Government and was therefore, "public-premises" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. Even assuming for the sake of convenience that no proceedings took place culminating in award under Section 9, 11, 11A &12 of the LA Act subsequent to notification dated 03.09.1970, the appellants have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings at such a belated stage.
UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS
27. That brings us to another plea canvassed at the Bar that the appellants are occupying the property as per the Ld. Estate Officer as 'encroachers' or ''rank trespassers" and thus it is urged that they as encroachers or trespassers per se do not fall within the definition of the expression "unauthorized occupation". The said expression is defined vide section 2(g) of the PP Act as follows:
(g) "unauthorised occupation", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continu-
ance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.
28. In the case of Jain Ink Mfg. Co. v. LIC, (1980) 4 SCC 435, the said provision came up for discussion and it was held that before a person could be said to be in an unauthorized occupation, the Act required the following conditions:
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 25 of 38(1) that the occupant had entered into possession before or after the commencement of the Act, (2) that he had entered into such possession otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant.
29. Further, observing that section 2(g) is an inclusive definition, it was held:-
"To begin with, it is manifest that Section 2(g) does not use the word "possession" or the words "entry into possession" at any point of time at all. The section merely requires occupation of any public premises. Entry into possession connotes one single terminus viz. the point of time when a person enters into possession or occupies the property whereas occupation is a continuous process which starts right from the point of time when the person enters into possession or occupies the premises and continues until he leaves the premises. What is germane for the purpose of interpretation of Section 2(g) is whether or not the person concerned was in occupation of the public premises when the Premises Act was passed."
30. In the light of the said proposition of law, reverting to the instant case, it may be reiterated that the plea of the appellants about their rightful occupation in the nature of being tenant or owner of their respective portion was not found sufficient enough so as to displace the claim of the DDA to proceed against the appellants by due process of law in Writ Petition No. 16/2009 vide order dated 20.10.2009 (review order dated 03.12.2009) followed by directions in Writ Petition No. 1752/2015 vide order dated 23.02.2015. Indeed, apparently it appears that the Ld. Estate Officer in the impugned common Eviction order RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 26 of 38 dated 22.08.2016 has not cared to discuss the individual objections of the appellants and a sweeping reasons are assigned that the appellants have failed to show any right, title or interest in the property in question. Be that as it may, the foundation of such reasoning can be conveniently culled out by this Court in appeal u/s 9 of the PPAct. It must be appreciated that gist of the claim of appellant Paramjeet Singh in PPA No. 16/2016 and that of the other appellants in PPA Nos. 12/2016, 14/2016, 15/2016, 17/2016 and 18/2016 is that they have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of their respective portions falling in the subject property by virtue of lease agreement in their favour executed by the erstwhile owner Narain Singh, which claim is untenable in law. It is not their claim that as on the date of notification under Section 6 and 7 of the LA Act dated 03.09.1970, they were occupying the premises in question as a tenant. Further, their claim that they came to occupy the property as the possession of the subject property was not taken over by the Central Government, is hopelessly fallacious in law. It is well settled that transfer of Nazul property under Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 with respect to Section 2(e)3(ii) of the PP Act is applicable to the exclusion of the Property Act, 1982, for which reference can be had to decision in DDA vs. Anant Raj Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd., (2016) 11 SCC 406.
31. The letter dated 02.09.1982 of the Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation, Government of India is a document, which is more than 30 years old and coming from the Government records and it shows that the subject property had been inspected and certain persons had RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 27 of 38 unauthorisedly encroached upon the subject property at the time of handing over its possession to the DDA on 08.05.1984. At no stage of the case, either in the previous Writ proceedings or otherwise, any claim has been preferred or lodged by the appellants/occupiers that they have not been given any notice of acquisition of land and/or compensation and the submission made by the Ld. Standing counsel for the DDA that the proceedings under Section 9, 11, 11A &12 of the LA Act were not required to be initiated in respect of a land already acquired on taking over symbolic possession by the DDA cannot be faulted in law. It was also rightly urged by the Ld. Standing counsel for the DDA that the claim of the appellants with regard to their tenancy rights cannot be agitated and no inquiry into the same can be conducted after the lapse of a reasonable period of time and the beneficial provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is not available to stale claims. Reference in this regard can be had to decision in the Writ Petition No. 3641/2016 and CM No. 6380/2019 titled Raghubir Singh vs. Union of India decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 11.02.2019 and in another decision in Writ Petition No. 2791/2015 titled Manish Gupta vs. Government of NCT and Others dated 18.01.2019.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. ESTATE OFFICER
32. In the aforesaid circumstances, the case of the appellants (except PPA Nos. 11/2016 & 12/2016) squarely falls within the ambit of the definition of 'unauthorised occupation' as contemplated by Section RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 28 of 38 2(g). With regard to non-compliance with section 4 & 5 of the PP Act, it may be appreciated that the the objects and reasons of the impugned Act and its preamble indicate that the Act was passed to provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public properties and premises, and to keep such properties free from encroachment and unlawful possession and to provide a speedier machinery for that purpose as against the lengthy proceedings under the ordinary law of eviction involving delay. Since in the case of public properties and premises the members of the public have a vital interest and the members of the public are interested in seeing that such properties and premises are freed from encroachment and unauthorised occupation as speedily as possible. Sections 4 of the PP Act reads as under :-
"4.Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction.--
(1) If the estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.
(2) The notice shall--
(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and [(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises,--
(i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof; and
(ii) to appear before the estate officer on the date specified in the notice along with the evidence which RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 29 of 38 they intend to produce in support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired.] (3) The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned."
33. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia, (2008) 3 SCC 279, the Apex Court has held that:
"Where an application is filed for eviction of an unauthorised occupant it obligates the Estate Officer to apply his mind so as to enable him to form an opinion that the respondent is a person who has been in unauthorised occupation of the public premises and that he should be evicted. When a notice is issued in terms of Section 4 of the Act, the noticee may show cause. Section 5 of the Act postulates that an order of eviction must be passed only upon consideration of the show cause and any evidence produced by him in support of its case also upon giving him a personal hearing, if any, as provided under Clause
(ii) of subsection (2) of Section 4 of the Act.
The Estate Officer with a view to determine the lis between the parties must record summary of the evidence. Summary of the evidence and the documents shall also form part of the record of the proceedings. Procedure laid down for recording evidence is stated in the Rules. The Estate Officer being a creature of the statute must comply with the same. When a notice is issued, the occupant of the public premises would not only be entitled to show cause but would also be entitled to produce evidence in support of the cause shown.
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 30 of 38The procedural aspect as to who should lead evidence first, thus may have to be determined on the basis of the issues arising in the matter. When we say so, we do not mean that the procedure involved being a summary one, the issues are required to be specifically framed but that which is the principal issue(s) between the parties must be known to the Estate Officer.
Thus under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 the occasion would arise for multi level inquiry: primary inquiry will be to arrive at a conclusion on "unauthorised occupant" and intermediate inquiry would be as to the eviction of "unauthorised occupant".
The question has been succinctly dealt with by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Minoo Framroze Balsara v. Union of India wherein Bharucha, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) opined: (AIR p. 389, para
36) "36. ...the government company or corporation must so act not only when terminating the authority of an occupant of public premises of its ownership to occupy the same but also when, thereafter, it seeks his eviction therefrom." The statute, although, does not require a lengthy hearing or a lengthy crossexamination but the noticee should be given an opportunity to file an effective showcause. An effective showcause can be filed when eviction is sought for a specified ground and the occupants must know the particulars in relation thereto. For the said purpose, Sections 4 and 5 of the Act must be read together. Even the Rules which are validly framed must be read along with the statutory provisions."
34. Reverting to the instant case, a bare perusal of the impugned common Eviction order dated 22.08.2016 vis-a-vis careful RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 31 of 38 reading of Section 4(I) of the PP Act would show that the appellants had been granted umpteen number of opportunities of hearing and though the objections were filed by them coupled with proof of their possession, Ration Card or for that matter rent receipts, no other evidence was brought forth. The ld Estate Officer in his quasi judicial wisdom got the documents submitted by the appellants verified and there could be no challenge to report in the inquiry that the appellants miserably failed to demonstrate that they were having any ownership rights or other legal interest in the subject property and it manifestly appears that the Ld. Estate Officer was aware of the decisions in the earlier Writ Petitions and rightfully shot down the objections of the appellants. It is needless to point out that mere mutation of their respective portions in the property in question falling in Khasra No. 3400 in the records of the MCD did not create ownership rights either.
35. A fortiori the claim by the appellants (except PPA Nos. 11/2016 & 13/2016) seeking protection under the Rent Laws cannot be sustained. In the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406, the provisions of the PP Act were held to override the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and it was observed that the PP Act has been enacted to deal with the mischief of rampant unauthorized occupation of public premises, by providing speedy machinery for eviction of persons in unauthorized occupation. It was further held that while the Delhi Rent Act is intended to deal with the general relationship of landlords and tenants, the PP Act is a special statute and not a general enactment.
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 32 of 38ADVERSE POSSESSION & LIMITATION
36. That being the proposition of law, the claim of the appellants in PPA No. 13/2016,14/2016,15/2016, 16/2016, 17/2016 &d 18/2016, seeking protection form eviction for they being tenants under the erstwhile owner Narain Singh falls flat. They also cannot claim adverse possession nor can claim that the proceedings are barred by limitation. In the case of Public Opinion Pvt. Ltd. vs. LIC, 2012 SCC Online Del 2779, in almost similar facts and circumstances, the plea of adverse possession by the unauthorized occupants was rejected. It was held :-
"In order to constitute adverse possession there must be actual possession of a person claiming as a right by himself or by person deriving title from him to prove title to the land by adverse possession. It is not sufficient to show that some acts of possession have been done. The possession acquired must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in existence to show that it is adverse to the owner. In other words the possession must be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued during the time necessary to create a bar under the statute of limitation. The possession required must be nec vi nec clam nec precario. Possession does not become adverse when the intention to hold adversely is wanting. Permissive possession and hostile animus operate in conceptually different fields. Adverse possession designates a possession in opposition to the true title and real owner and implies that it commenced in wrong and is maintained against right. (See Alexander v. Polk, 39 Miss. 755). It is possession inconsistent with and in denial of the right of the landlord to the premises. See Hoses v. Lovegrove, (1952) 1 TLR 1324). A person taking the plea of adverse possession must allege and prove the date when his possession become adverse RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 33 of 38 so that the starting point of limitation against the party against whom such plea is claimed can be calculated. As long possession does not mean adverse possession, a mere allegation that the party was in uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years or that the party claiming it has acquired absolute title are vague allegations from which plea of adverse possession cannot be founded (see S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254). Obviously a person, who clams acquisition of title by adverse possession, has to establish it."
37. In another case titled Nandram vs. Union of India, 2000 SCC Online Del 523 dealing with the challenge with the occupiers that the proceeding under PP Act were barred by limitation, it was observed as under :-
"Besides, the Public Premises (Eviction of Occupants) Act, 1971 is a special Act and it has provided for a period of limitation wherever it is necessary and, therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act as such cannot be made applicable to such a special Act. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in T.K. Lakshmana Iyer and Others v. State of Madras and Others, AIR 1968 SC 1489 and the decision in Town Municipal Council v. Presiding Office, Labour Court, Hubli and Others, AIR 1969 SC 1335. Reference may also be made to decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of L.S. Nair v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. Bhilai and Others, AIR 1980 MP 106. In the said Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered by the Chief Justice, G.P. Singh (as his Lordship then was), it was held that the Estate Officer is not a court and, therefore, the Limitation Act does not apply to a proceeding before him. It was further held that as Limitation Act does not apply and RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 34 of 38 jurisdiction of Civil Court is entirely barred in matters governed by 1971 Act, there is no period of limitation for recovery of damages for unauthorised use and occupation of Govt. Company's quarter by its employee. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and hold that to the proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the provisions of the Limitation Act shall not apply."
38. Therefore, without further ado, the claim of the appellants they have become owner by way of adverse possession cuts no ice. At the cost of repetition, no such hostile claim against the Government or for that matter against DDA was ever espoused. Lastly, in so far as the case of appellant Om Prakash in PPA No. 11/2016 is concerned, if his plea that he is in continuous possession of land or super structure measuring 55 Sq. yards bearing property No. 3352 falling in different area is accepted, then it means he has no locus standi to challenge the impugned common Eviction order. However, there is more to his claim than to meet the eyes. It is admitted case that initially notice under Section 4(I) of the PP Act was served upon one Rakesh but the appellant Om Prakash joined the hearing before the Ld. Estate Officer and accordingly, the notice was amended and he filed his objections dated 28.07.2016. Though the appellant Om Prakash claims that he had purchased the property from one Gurdev Singh vide registered Sale Deed dated 15.10.2008 and Gurdev Singh appears to have purchased the same from Smt. Mahinder Kaur as General Power of Attorney for Jagdish Chander Ahuja vide registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2003, the previous chain of title to the property is missing in as RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 35 of 38 much as the earlier documents are only in the nature of General Power of Attorneys/Agreement to Sell, receipts, etc. acquired from one Raghunath Singh vide General Power of Attorney and other documents dated 01.03.1971. By virtue of said Section 3 and 4 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions of Transfer) Act, 1972, any land or part thereof situated in the Union Territory of Delhi, which has been acquired by the Central Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, shall not be the subject of transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise. Needless to state that if any sale or transfer of interest of any part of the subject property has been effected after notification under Section 6 and 7 of the LA Act that is void ab initio and does not create any legal right, title or claim in respect of any part of the subject property in favour of the transferees/appellants based on the principle of nemo dat quod non habet, which means that no one can pass a better title to another than what he himself has.
39. Likewise, the case of the appellant Joginder Singh, son of Ami Lal is per se not maintainable for want of locus standi as he himself claims that it is his wife Smt. Saroj Bala, who is owner of property No. 3369 by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 16.09.2015. Interestingly, it stares on the face of the record that the appellant executed the Sale Deed in favour of his wife and it appears that earlier he purchased the same vide various sale documents in the nature of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, etc. dated 23.04.2002 from his father who appears to have purchased the property from one Smt. Radha Devi vide such sale documents dated 17.05.1995. It manifestly appears that RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 36 of 38 the said documents or transfer deeds are self-serving and are a cloak or a camouflage to lay false claim to a part of the subject property.
RESULT
40. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that there is no merit in the present appeals. All the appeals are hereby dismissed and the impugned common Eviction order dated 22.08.2016 passed under Section 5 of the PP Act is hereby sustained and the appellants are directed to vacate their respective portions within 15 days of this order failing which the respondent/Delhi Development Authority shall be empowered to physically evict the appellants from their respective portions in the subject property/land measuring 845 Sq. Yards falling Khasra No. 3400, Ranjit Nagar, Site No.1, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi, using such force as may be necessary; and each of the appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- for unlawfully occupying the public land meant for a park for such a long time, and imposition of such costs shall be without prejudice to the rights of the DDA to claim further damages or costs in terms of Section 7 of the PP Act. The DDA shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the appellants as per law.
41. The main copy of the judgment be kept in PPA No. 16/2016 titled Paramjeet Singh vs. DDA whereas its signed copies be kept in other appeal files.
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 37 of 3842. The records of the Ld. Estate Officer be returned along- with a copy of this judgment.
43. All the appeal files be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DHARMESH DHARMESH SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2020.07.06
17:56:05 +0530
Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA)
on 3rd July, 2020 District & Sessions Judge (West)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
RCT-01/2018 Balwinder Bedi v. A. K. Bhattacharya & Anr. Page 38 of 38