Delhi District Court
Sh. Devi Dayal vs (1) Delhi Development Authority on 9 September, 2014
Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
IN THE COURT OF SH. G. N. PANDEY
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 (NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PPA No. 75/14
Case I.D. Number : 02402C0141112014
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Devi Dayal
S/o Late Sh. Jangali Ram
R/o H103, T Huts,
H Block, New Seelampur,
Delhi .......Appellant
VERSUS
(1) Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA Market
New Delhi
(2) Sh. O. P. Madan
Estate OfficerII,
DDA, INA Market,
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. ........Respondents
Date of Institution of Appeal:10.05.2014
Date of Arguments : 09.09.2014
Date of Judgment/Order : 09.09.2014
Decision : Appeal Dismissed
PPA No. 7514
Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 1 of 30
Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
J U D G M E N T
1. The present appeal is filed under the provisions of Section 9 of the Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 ( hereinafter referred to as said Act) against the impugned order dated 13.03.2014 passed by Sh. O. P. Madan, Estate Officer II, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan New Delhi in the case file registered as File No. EV/TN2 (63) 2011/515/Damage/109/CH (S) 667 whereby the proceedings initiated by Ld. Estate Officer under the provisions of 4 (1) of the Act was concluded and the appellant was directed to vacate the land measuring 04 bigha and 00 biswa bearing khasra No. 206/11 min situated in Chiragah (S) Delhi under the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the said Act.
The appellant in this case as well as M/s Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multipurpose Society ( hereinafter referred to as the said society) were the original respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Estate Officer. Aggrieved by impugned order, the instant appeal has been filed by appellant only and no appeal has been filed by the Society above said.
2. The Estate OfficerII issued a notice Under Section 4 of the said Act to the appellant/respondent stating to be in illegal/unauthorized occupation of the land measuring 04 bigha and 00 biswa bearing khasra No. 206/11 min situated in Chiragah (S) Delhi and asked him to show cause as to why the eviction order be not passed against him.
3. In response to the said notice, the appellant as well as the Secretary of PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 2 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. the Society filed their reply/objections to the eviction notice. The objections of the appellant as well as that of the society were identical. In the reply, the appellant contended that he was a member of the society which was registered on 13.06.1949 with the object to help poor and landless peasants of Delhi who were well acquainted with agricultural practice. They averred that each member of the Society with his hard work was able to develop barren and waste land along side river Yamuna which was leased to the said society by the Delhi Improvement Trust ( Predecessor in interest of the Delhi Development Authority). It was stated that the said land was developed into fertile agricultural green land to cater to the citizens of Delhi. It was started that the society was founded as a " SelfHelp Group" of poor and landless peasants to give themselves selfemployment and also to grow food under the grow more food' campaign of Govt. of India. It was stated that the land in question was far away from the bank of river Yamuna and could only be used for agricultural purposes and as a green belt. The appellant claimed that they had put hte said land to its best possible use. The appellant contended that out of the total land measuring approximately 13,344 bighas leased to the estate, only 1017 bighas of land was cultivable and the remaining land was barren and waste being "
Charahgah" surrounded by jhunds. With the efforts of the members of the Society, fertile agricultural and was being used by them for that purpose.
4. It was contended that the appellant was paying " lagan" to the Society regularly and the Society continued to pay lease money to the Delhi PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 3 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. Improvement Trust and thereafter to the Delhi Development Authority. The appellant contended that under the resolution No. 6 dated 30.04.1973, the highest decision making body of the DDA had approved that each cultivator should be given license of the area in his possession as reflected in the Girdawari for a period of eleven months.
5. The appellant contended in their objections that the society was still pursuing the matter with t he DDA while the Estate Officer initiated eviction proceedings against them in which eviction orders were passed. They were challenged before the Additional District Judge who allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Estate Officer with the directions to ascertain as to whether Society continued to be a lessee or not.
6. It was contended by the appellant that the DDA was a " State" and was bound to act within the provisions of law. The appellant contended that they were settled in the lands in question and could not be dispossessed from the same without following due process of law which could only be done by, firstly determination of lease of the society and thereafter by filing of a suit for possession and not proceedings under Public Premises Act. It was contended that the appellant was not aware as to how the DDA complied with the decisions of its highest decision making body regarding grant of licenses to individual members of the society. Appellant denied that they were in unauthorized occupation in the land in question. The appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 19.04.2005 passed in Writ PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 4 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. Petition (c ) No. 14260/2004 pertaining to the lands in question. It was contended that the Hon'ble High Court had by the said order directed the Estate Officer to take into the consideration Resolution No. 6 dated 30.04.1973 of the DDA while adjudicating the eviction proceedings.
7. The appellant further contended that under the provisions of the Master Plan of Delhi, the lands abutting the river Yamuna has to be maintained as a ' green belt' and that there could not be any permanent structure on the same. Permitted activities under the Master Plan were in the nature of forestry, agricultural, green belt etc. The appellant contended that since inception, they were engaged in activities which were ecofriendly as they kept the lands in question green by practicing cultivation. The appellant contended that they had also been able to protect the lands from unauthorized encroachment and that as per the Master Plan, the lands in question fell in Zone 'O'. As per the same, the lands had to be maintained as a natural conservation zone to be protected from any encroachment/development and to allow free flow of water. Construction activity for human habitation was not permitted.
8. The appellant further contended that 61 unauthorized colonies have come up on Zone 'O' or on the river Yamuna front and a tentative list of unauthorized colonies were prepared for consideration of change in land use. Appellant contended that on the one hand the DDA was regularizing unauthorized colonies on lands falling in Zone 'O' and at the same time it was trying to evict poor and landless farmers who were using the said lands in PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 5 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. conformity with the Master Plan. It was contended that the show cause notice did not mention as to how much land was specifically required by the authority. Rights of farmers were in the category of basic human rights since their livelihood was dependent on agriculture and if they were provided of land which provided them livelihood, their human rights would stand violated.
9. A joint reply to the objections of the appellant was filed by the DDA before the Estate Officer. In the same, it was contended that the objections were misconceived and were filed just to delay the matter. It was contended that no documentary evidence in support of their contentions were produced by the objectors. No allotment was ever by the authroity in favour of Sh. Kanhiya Lal and found to be in unauthorized occupation in lands in question. It is stated that in 1949, large tracts of land falling in Village Parparganj Shamspur, Jatwar Kalan Sough, Gaonwal, Mohammad Khan Walal, Jhilmil Tahirpur South, Jhilmil Tahirpur North and Murgi Khana were given on temporary lease for five years by the Delhi Improvement Trust by Resolution No. 157 dated 29.06.1949 to the Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multipurpose Society for collective farming.
10. It is contended that the said Revenue Estates were reconstituted and details of lands in possession of the Society were recorded. It is stated that out of the same, land measuring 8902 bigha 13 biswa had already been surrendered/resumed and handed over to different Government Departments. It was stated that the said lands were placed at the disposal of the Delhi PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 6 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. Improvement Trust vide Nazul agreement dated 31.03.1937 executed between Delhi Improvement Trust and the Secretary of State of India. It is stated that the lease of the Society was extended from time to time and stood expired on 14.06.1966. By order dated 31.07.1967, the Society was informed that the lease of the said Nazul land stood determined on 14.06.1966 and the Society was called up to hand over possession of the same to the Tehsildar ( Nazul) immediately and not later than 05.08.1967. It is stated that the society failed to hand over possession of the lands and by order dated 03.12.1970, the society was again asked to hand over possession on 10.12.1970. It is stated that the society did not make payment of ground rent and demand letter dated 03.12.1970 for arrears of ground rent were sent to the society. Due to non payment of arrears of ground rent, attachment orders were issued for recovery of the same as arrears of land revenue.
11. It was further contended by the DDA that temporary lease in favour of the society stood expired on 14.06.66 and no further extension was granted after 1966. occupation of the society or any other person claiming through the society of the lands in question became unauthorized and illegal and the DDA was well within its rights to resume the possession. It is stated that neither the society nor any of its members had any right in the lands in question. Deposit of any money with the DDA after expiry of the lease by the society or any occupant suo moto without any demand by DDA did not creat any right in their favour. It was contended that Civil Writ Petition No. 3285/1992 was PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 7 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. instituted by 22 occupants of Delhi Peasants Co operative Multipurpose Society against the DDA in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi contending that the lease had been granted by the Delhi improvement Trust for five years which was extended from time to time. The DDA in the said Writ Petition had contended that the lease which was given for five years stood determined on 14.06.66 and without any extension, the petitioners of the said Writ petition did not have right to contend that they could not be dispossessed. It is stated that the Hon'ble High court of Delhi by order dated 27.05.93 dismissed the said writ petition holding that the lease stood terminated in the year 1966 and the same had not been extended beyond 14.06.66. It was further held that the information of the same had been given by the DDA to the society through letter dated 31.07.67 and neither the society nor any member thereof had any interest in the lands. Their possession was found to be unauthorized under law.
12. It was contended that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by order dt. 03.03.03 passed in Writ petition No. 2112/2002 had directed the DDA and other authorities to remover all unauthorized structures, slums, places of worship from the Yamuna River Bed. It is stated that the land involved in this case wa required for channelization/beautification of the Yamuna River Bed. Subsequent to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Eviction proceedings had been initiated against the society and other occupants. Evict orders were passed on 01.08.07 by the Estate officer against which an appeal was preferred. The appellate court remanded the matter to the Estate officer by order dt.
PPA No. 7514
Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 8 of 30
Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. 01.09.09 on the ground that the orders did not describe the land and the Revenue Estate from which these persons were to be evicted.
13. In respect of the Resolution No. 6 dated 30.04.73 of the authority, it is stated that their contents may be referred to ascertain its true meaning and scope. It was contended that by the said Resolution, it was recorded that society has not been paying ground rent and was in arrears thereof. Resolution referred to grant of license to individuals and it was resolved that pending decision in the case of Jheel Khuranja Milk Producer Society, members of the Delhi peasants Co operative Multipurpose Society may be charged rent on old rates and lease extended provided they cleared outstanding dues. Since the society failed to clear the outstanding dues, the temporary lease which had already expired was not renewed. Society therefore could not claim any right in respect of the said lands.
14. With respect to the contention of regularization of unauthorized colonies in the Yamuna River Bed, it is stated that there were no unauthorized colonies in the lands in question which were vacant and were being used for agricultural purposes except for a few temporary hutments which had been unauthorized raised for storing agricultural produce and cattle fodder. It was stated that the case set up by the objectors did not have any parity for regularization of unauthorized colonies and that in view of judgment dt. 27.05.93 of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ petition Civil No. 3285/1992, neither the society nor any person claiming under them had any right to the PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 9 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. lands in question and they were liable to be ejected.
15. After completion of pleadings, the Estate Officer recorded the evidence on behalf of the DDA and Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multipurpose Society. The appellant did not step into the witness box and did not lead any evidence. The Estate Officer by the impugned order dated 13.03.2014 disposed of the proceedings initiated under section 4(1) of the Act and passed an order under section 5(1) of the Act directing the appellant as well as the Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multi purposes Society to vacate the lands in question within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
16. In the appeal, the appellants mentioned that the appellant's ancestors were owner of agricultural land in the area of Indraprastha across Yamuna River. The government proposed that the land needed by the government and the land of the appellant's ancestor's was exchanged and land in question was allotted. The appellant is the absolute owner in exclusive possession of the land. The respondent No. 1 issued notice terminating the lease deed in the year 1997 of which neither the appellant nor ancestors were parties. The respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings without any request from respondent No. 1 or without granting any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The question of ownership as claimed by the appellant could not be decided by the respondent No. 2 and the eviction order was illegally passed.
As further contended by the appellant, the respondents have concealed PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 10 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. and suppressed the material facts. The appellant remained in uninterrupted possession of the land for more than 50 years and cannot be considered as unauthorized occupant, appellant is the owner of the property and not lessee of the respondent No. 1; the respondent No. 1 has no authority and the eviction order was passed without any basis. The suit land is a private land and the eviction order is illegal. The appellant was not issued any notice by the respondent No. 2 and the impugned order was passed without any documents. The Ld. Counsel fort the appellant prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
17. The respondent No. 1 did not wish to file reply to the appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that 13,344 Bigha of land belonging to the Delhi Improvement Trust ( Now the DDA) was allotted to the society vide resolution No. 157 dated 29.06.1949. The society allotted the aforesaid land to its members and the appellant being member of the society was allotted the above mentioned land. The society has been regularly paying the land revenue and using the said land since 1949 onwards. In 1956 DDA took decision to take over the possession of the land from the society to reallot the individual farmers but the same was not done and the lease in favour of the society was extended till 1966. On 31.07.1967 DDA asked the society to hand over the possession of the land. Society filed one suit for restraining the DDA from taking possession which was dismissed. An appeal was filed by the society before Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide RFA No. 257/1971 wherein the PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 11 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. statement was made by the DDA to the affect that the appellant would not be dispossessed without following due process of law and accordingly the appeal was disposed off. Notice was issued to the society as to why an eviction order be not passed and the DDA filed an eviction petition before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer passed the Eviction order dated 01.08.2007. The said eviction order of Estate officer was challenged by the society in appeal which was allowed vide judgment dated 01.09.2009 and the eviction order was set aside while observing that the description of land was not mentioned therein and the matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer with the direction to pass order afresh specifying/showing the description of land for which the eviction order was passed. Thereafter, the appellant received show cause notice U/S 4 of the PP Act which was replied by the appellant as well as society and the proceedings were initiated. Before the Ld. Estate Officer, both the parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The Ld. Estate Officer thereafter passed the impugned order dated 13.03.2014 U/S 5 (1) of the Act declaring the appellant as an authorized occupant and asked to vacate the same the said land within 15 days from the date of the order.
18. The impugned order dated 13.03.2014 is challenged by way of the present appeal mainly on the grounds that (I) The appellant is the owner of the land in question and the respondents have no locus standi to initiate the proceedings under the PP Act (II) No show cause notice was ever issued by the respondent No. 2 to the PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 12 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. appellant and denial of the fair opportunity. The principles of natural justice not observed by respondent No. 2.
(III) The DDA /respondent No. 1 is not the owner and the appellant is not the lessee.
19. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the Estate Office had no authority to initiate the eviction proceedings and to pass the eviction order as he was not appointed as per Section 3 of the PP Act. It is further argued that notice U/S 4 of the Act was not valid and the appellant is the owner of the land in question and there is no basis for determination of any lease. The finding by the Ld. Estate Officer that the lease was determined on 14.06.66 was not based on any material on record. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment reported as 2014 (2) CLJ 421 SC titled Band Box Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Estate Officer, Punjab & Sindh Bank & Ors, 2009 (2) RCR 344 and 1988 (1) RCR 670 and 2009 (2) RCR 344 in support of contentions.
20. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1/DDA on the other hand argued that the lease of the society was validly determined by the DDA vide letter dated 31.07.1967; the appellant was served with the show cause notice and there is no ground for filing of this appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the DDA further supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order and the same is liable to be upheld. While bringing PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 13 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. notice to this court the dismissal of the similar appeals by other courts in similar matters, the Ld. Counsel for respondent/DDA prayed to dismiss the appeal with cost.
21. I have heard Ms. Gyan Mitra, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. S. Bhana, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the respondent and perused the relevant materials available on the records. I have also gone through the original records of Ld. Estate Officer.
22. The public premises( eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 was enacted to provide for speedy and summary eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. As held in AIR, 2000 DEL 439(D.B.) titled Nisha V/s Punjab National Bank, the whole genesis of this act presupposes that the premises in question are public premises belonging to the Government or statutory authority. They are in occupation of a person who is or has become unauthorized occupant of these premises and government/ statutory authority wants him to be evicted. The statute has conferred a right to speedy recovery of possession on the Government / statutory body from the persons occupying their premises.
23. Section 4 (1) of the act provides for issuance of notice by the Estate officers if he is the opinion that any persons are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and are liable to be evicted. Section 4(2) provides that the notice shall specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made and to require the persons in occupation to show cause against the PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 14 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. proposed order. Section 5 of the act provides that if after considering the cause shown by any persons in pursuance of a notice u/s 4 , the Estate officer was satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized occupation, he may make an order of a eviction against them. The relevant sections 4 and 5 of the act is reproduced below for reference.
4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction (1) If the estate officer is of the opinion that any persons are in unauthorized 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 PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 15 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. specified in the notice alongwith the evidence which 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.
5. Eviction of unauthorized occupants (1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and [ any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under clause(b) of sub section(2) of section 4], the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized occupation, the estate officer may make an order to eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises.
(2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of
PPA No. 7514
Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 16 of 30
Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. eviction [ on or before, the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of the date of its publication under sub section(1), whichever is later,] the estate officer or any other officer duly authorized by the estate officer in this behalf [may after the date so specified or after the expiry of the period , aforesaid, whichever is latter, evict that person] from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary.
24. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the appellant regarding ownership of land in question does not appear to have substance. There is no documentary evidence regarding the contention of ownership of the land in question in favour of the appellant. Simply on the basis of bald averments, the appellant cannot be considered as owner. As contended by the respondent, the society was allotted the land in question and was declared as an unauthorized occupant vide letter dated 31.07.1967. The Society could not have any right to continue in possession thereafter including the appellant who just entered into shoes of the society. This contention of the respondent No. 1 appears to be true in view of the defence of the appellant before the Ld. Estate Officer. Moreover, the appellant before the Ld. Estate Officer claimed that the land has been allotted to him by the Delhi Peasant Cooperative Multipurpose Society Ltd. and he has been paying rent to the society. The appellant also accepted the statement of Sh. Baljeet Singh, General Secretary of the Society to be true and correct PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 17 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. and stated to act as per the advice of the society. The appellant admitted further that there is no formal allotment letter issued by the society in his favour and he has no documentary evidence except the receipt of payment of rent to the society. The contentions of the appellant before the Ld. Estate Officer and the claim of the appellant regarding ownership before this court appears to be contrary to each other and therefore not acceptable. The claim of the appellant regarding ownership therefore appears to be without any basis and have no merits.
25. Ld. Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as the appellant is the owner, there is no question of termination of any lease by the respondent No. 1. Regarding the issue of termination of lease, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand brought to the notice of this court several communications by the DDA to the Society i.e. letters dated 24.01.1974, 13.12.77, letter dated 21.06.1983, letter dated 04.11.1987 and resolution No. 6 of 1973 of the DDA. These letters are dealt as below:
(i) Letter dated 24.01.1974 written by the Deputy Director ( Lands) to the Society: This letter refers to Resolution No. 6 dated 30.04.1973 as modified by Resolution No. 26 dated 31.05.1973 of the DDA and states that as per old rates the Society was liable to make payments of Rs. 3,86,129.80 for the period 196364 to 19721973 and balance outstanding amount of Rs. 92,076.70 due as on 14.06.1963. It also records that Rs. 1,79,511.55 had been paid by the Society and it was called upon to pay an amount of Rs.
PPA No. 7514
Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 18 of 30
Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. 2,06,618.32. It was further stated that the amounts payable had been calculated on the old rates and was subject to revision as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court to be rendered in the case of Jheel Khurenja Milk Producers Co operative Society Vs. DDA.
(ii) Letter dated 13.12.1977 written by Deputy Director ( Lands) DDA to the Society: By this letter the DDA informed the Society it that " lease money" for the period 19731977 amounting to Rs. 1,12,547.47 was payable and the Society was directed to pay the same to the DDA.
(iii) Letter dated 21.06.1983 written by Deputy Director ( Lands) DDA to the Society: By this letter the DDA referred to another letter dated 18.02.1983 and informed the society that it had not attended the office of the DDA for settlement of accounts and the Society was directed to furnish details so that payments could be verified.
(iv) Letter dated 04.11.1987 written by Deputy Director ( Lands) DDA to the Coordinating Officer ( Damages): By this letter the Deputy Director of the DDA has written to the said authority stating that the case regarding renewal of lease in respect of land allotted to the Society was under
consideration and stated that eviction proceedings against the cultivators of the Society be kept in abeyance till further orders.
I have gone through these documents and find myself in consonance with the arguments by Ld. Counsel for the respondent. By virtue of these documents it is observed that the lease in favour of the society had come to an PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 19 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. end and the case regarding the renewal of the same was under consideration. The factum regarding consideration of renewal of lease in favour of the society could only arise after the same has been terminated or determined. This court finds itself in consonance with the finding of the Estate Officer that the lease was never extended after 1966.
26. Next contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant never received any show cause notice. This contention of the appellant appears to be false in view of the records of the Estate Officer. The appellant appeared before the Estate Officer and regularly participated in the proceedings. The appellant further stated before the Ld. Estate Officer that he will act as per the advice of the society and he does not have any authentic document like allotment letter issued from the society. The appellant was granted opportunity before the Ld. Estate Officer and no defence/issue regarding ownership was ever raised by the appellant before the Ld. Estate Officer. The records of the Estate Officer shows that the parties were given due opportunity to adduce their case which they availed and the Ld. Estate Officer has passed the impugned order for eviction on the basis of records. The appellant has failed to demonstrate from the records that principles of natural justice were not adhered by the Ld. Estate Officer.
27. Next contention raised by the appellant is that lease could not have been terminated by the DDA before expiry of six months as mandated in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in as much as the land in question is PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 20 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
agricultural land. On the other hand, it has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for the DDA that Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable in as much as there is a special statute under which lease of the society was determined.
Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the appellant was present and participated through out the proceedings before the Ld. Estate Officer and had stated that he would act as per advice of the Society. The statement of Baljeet Singh, General Secretary of the Society was recorded who stated that he was not aware whether the Society had received letter dated 31.07.1967 whereby the Society was informed regarding cancellation/determination of lease and was asked to surrender the possession by 05.08.1967. Admittedly the rights of the occupant flow from the society which was asked to surrender the possession.
28. After going through the rival contentions of the parties on this point, I have gone through the ratio of judgment of the Apex Court in case of Cantonment Board and Another Vs. Church of North India AIR 2011 SC 2339. Facts of the said case were that lease deed between the parties was not a registered lease deed as was necessary under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the said case, there was 7 days notice of termination of lease. It was held by the Apex Court that provisions of Sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act could not be applied to the said case since the premises were covered under a special Act which will prevail as against a PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 21 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. general enactment. It was also observed that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in insisting that a 15 days notice was necessary.
29. In the present case, lease of the Society was determined/terminated by the DDA vide letter dated 31.07.1967 whereby calling upon it to hand over the possession by 05.08.1967. As per the law of land in Cantonment Borard's case (supra), since the land in question is covered under special Act i.e. Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the general enactment i.e. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act will not be applicable in the present case. So, there was no necessity to give notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by giving six months time to the appellant to hand over the possession. Even otherwise, the tenancy/lease of the land in question was in favour of the Society and there was no transfer of land in question as per the Punjab Tenancy Act in favour of the appellant by the Society. The possession of land in favour of the appellant was the internal matter as he was alloted the land being member of the Society. There is force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for DDA that the tenancy/ lease in favour of the appellant was not as per law. It has been shown on record that the lease/tenancy of the Society was determined by DDA vide letter dated 31.07.1967 and it was asked to hand over the possession of leased out land by 05.08.1967. Since the lease/tenancy of the Society was not extended, the appellant become unauthorized occupant of the land in question.
30. I have gone through the ratio of judgment in case of Syndicate Bank PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 22 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
Vs. Ramachandran Pillai and
Ors.
2011(1) Scale 368. Facts of the case were
that the appellant bank was the owner of a shop and one Ramakrishna Pillai was the tenant in occupation of the said premises till 1997. In the year 1998, appellant bank issued a notice terminating the tenancy and called upon Ramkrishna Pillai to vacate the premises. As he failed to vacate, action was taken against him under the PP Act. The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order of the Estate Officer by declaring his legal representatives as unauthorized occupants.
31. In the present case also, the Society which was alloted the land in question was declared as an unauthorized occupant vide letter dated 31.07.1967 and then the Ld. Estate Officer passed the eviction order dated 31.01.2014. The impugned order therefore does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the findings of the Ld. Estate Officer does nor warrant for any interference.
32. It is pertinent to quote Section 2 (g) of the Public Premises Act, 1971 which defines the terminology " unauthorized occupant", which reads as under: " 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 PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 23 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. reason whatsoever".
33. I have gone through the judgment in case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. reported as AIR 1991 SC 855 in which the unauthorized occupant as defined in section 2 (g) of the PP Act has been elaborated. While dealing with this aspect, it was observed that the definition of unauthorized occupant covers a case where a person has entered into occupation of the Public Premises legally as a tentant under a lease but whose tenancy has expired or has been determined in accordance with law. The second pat of the definition as contained in section 2 (g) is inclusive in nature and it expressly covers continuance in occupation by any person of the Public Premises after the authority under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined.
34. As mentioned the Delhi Improvement Trust ( now DDA ) leased out the land to the society vide resolution No. 157 dated 29.06.1949 and the term and conditions of the lease were finalized. The period of lease at the instance was for 5 years. There is no dispute that ownership of the land leased out to the society stood transferred to the DDA. Letter dated 31.07.1967 vide which the lease/tenancy was determined, reads as under: " Whereas the term of lease of Nazul land situated in Estates of Inderprastha, Bela, Chiragah North and Chiragah South given to the Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multipurpose Society stands expired on 14.06.1966, you are, therefore, hereby PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 24 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. required to hand over the possession of the land immediately but not later than 5th of August to the Tehsildar Nazul, Delhi Development Authority"
The abovequoted letter dated 31.07.1997 was issued to the secretary of the Society informing him that the lease stood expired by issuance of said letter and he was asked to hand over the possession of land leased out to the appellant Society by 05.08.1967. In this letter, it was specifically mentioned that lease of the land granted to the Society ended in June, 1966 which clearly goes to prove that lease of the Society expired by efflux of time as no renewal of the lease was made by the DDA for the period beyond June, 1966. By issuance of this letter, the tenancy/lease of the Society was determined by the DDA.
35. In view of the materials on record, it has been shown that the Society obtained the possession of the premises in question under a lease from the respondent and then gave the premises to appellant for its use and occupation. The lease of the Society was determined by the respondent vide letter dated 31.07.1967 and by issuing that letter which is a notice under section 4 of the PP Act, lease of the Society stood terminated/determined. The appellant failed to show categorically that he is the owner of the land in question. After determination of lease by respondent, the appellant became unauthorized occupant as defined in section 2 (g) of the PP Act inasmuch as right to use the said land by appellant flows from the rights of the Society.
PPA No. 7514
Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 25 of 30
Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
36. It is also necessary and relevant to examine the locus standi of the appellant for filing of this appeal. It is admitted that the land in dispute was leased/allotted by Delhi Improvement Trust ( Now DDA) to the society vide resolution No. 157 of the DDA dated 29.06.49. The lease contained that it was executed for the period of five years. One of the conditions of the lease mentioned that the society would register all changes in the possession of the whole of the land or of the building thereon in the registered kept in the office of the Delhi Improvement Trust and the said changes were to be registered within one month. Clause 14 of the said lease contend that the lessee ( i.e. society) could not sublet any portion or all of lands which were the subject matter of the lease except with the previous permission of Delhi Improvement Trust.
37. The respondent/DDA issued notice U/S 4 of the Act to the appellant. There is no document on record to infer that the appellant was ever inducted into the land in question as owner rather the land in question was leased by the Delhi Improvement Trust in the year 1949 to the Society. The question remained as to in which capacity the appellant is in occupation of land in question. As observed the society inducted many persons in the lands allotted to it by the trust without any authority and further the society never intimated the trust ( now DDA) about changes in the occupation of the lands though it was required to do so under the terms and conditions of the lease. The appellant not being member of the society is in unauthorized occupation of the PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 26 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. land in question and the occupation of the appellant is not concerned with the terms of the lease executed in the year 1949 in favour of the society. The Ld. Estate Officer therefore rightly concluded that the appellant have no right to remain in possession of the land in question and is therefore unauthorized occupant. This court does not find any illegality or infirmity in this respect in the impugned order.
38. It is alleged by the Ld. Counsel for appellant that the resolution No. 6 of 1973 the DDA was not relied and acted upon and relied on order dated 19.04.06 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in writ petition (civil) No. 14260/04. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant further argued that the Ld. Estate Officer not considered the above said order and started the eviction proceedings.
39. The resolution No. 6 of 1973 contained the history regarding allotment of land to the society in 1949. The same itself mentioned that the land was given to the society on lease for five years in 1949 ending on 15.06.1954. The said resolution 6 of 1973 itself mention that the lease of the society was extended up to 1966 and the case was referred to the Standing Committee of the DDA which made recommendations on 20.06.1967. The recommendation dated 20.06.1967 is mentioned as below for reference
(a) that the Society required to pay rent w.e.f. 16.06.1964 to 15.06.1967 @ ¼ th of the cost of the produce of the land;
(b) as the lease stood determine the Society be directed to surrender the possession of the land forthwith;
PPA No. 7514
Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 27 of 30
Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
(c) existing actual cultivators be permitted to cultivate up to 5.06.1968; and
(d) as required by PAC enquiry may be held by an officer to be nominated by the Chairman, DDA.
These recommendation of the standing committee was approved by the DDA and notice was served upon the society to hand over the possession of the land to the DDA by 05.08.1967. The society was further asked to pay the arrears of rent. The possession was not handed over by the society nor the dues were paid as itself mentioned in resolution VI of 1973. as mentioned the lease of the society was cancelled with the effect from June, 1966 and a letter was issued to the society calling upon to hand over the possession of the lands to the DDA by 05.08.1967. the resolution of the DDA did not extent the lease by any stretch of imagination. There is nothing on the record to infer that the lease was ever extended. This court therefore have the conclusion the lease of the society as to determine with effect from June, 1966 and no extension of the lease took place thereafter. The finding of the learned Estate officers that lease in favour of the society is to be determine in June, 1966 and was never renewed or extended thereafter does not warrant for any interference.
40. Counsel for the appellant had also submitted that there were unauthorized colonies standing on similar lands and their regularization was under contemplation of the government. It was submitted that the appellant PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 28 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. had in fact protected the lands from encroachment and the appellant thus could not be discriminated against. This contention cannot be upheld as it is settled law that there cannot be any negative application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the case of State of U.P. Vs Neeraj Awasthi reported in (2006) 1 SCC 667 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:
"75. The fact that all appointments have been made without following the procedure, or services of some persons appointed have been regularized in the past, in our opinion , cannot be said to be a normal mode which must receive the seal of the court. Past practice is not always the best practice. If how such illegality can be allowed to perpetuate. The state and the Board were bound to take steps in accordance with law. Even in this behalf Article 14 of the Constitution will have no application. Article 14 has a positive concept. No equality can be claimed in illegality is now well settled. ( See State of A.P. v S.B.P.B Chalapathi Rao29, SCC para 8; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v Sampuran Singh 30, SCC para 13 and State of Bihar v Kameshwar Prasad Singh31, SCC para 30.)"
41. In the case of State of U. P. v Neeraj Awasthi ( Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that no equality can be claimed in illegality. Thus it PPA No. 7514 Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 29 of 30 Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. is not open for the appellant to contend that if illegal encroachments are being regularized, they be not evicted from the lands in question.
42. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it may be concluded that the appellant failed to produce any documents regarding the extension of the lease in his favour after June, 1966. It is reiterated that the society i.e. respondent No. 2 which was the allottee of the land and also a party to the proceedings before the Ld. Estate Officer has not filed any appeal challenging the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this court does not find any basis to interfere with the findings of the Ld. Estate Officer that the lease was determined and not extended after June, 1966 and the appellant is an unauthorized occupation of the land in question. The impugned order appears to be well reasoned and correct appreciation of the facts based on the relevant records. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order to interfere with. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
43. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Estate Officer concerned along with the records.
44. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on this 9th day of September, 2014 G. N. Pandey Addl. District Judge02 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
PPA No. 7514
Devi Dayal Vs. DDA & Ors. page 30 of 30