Delhi District Court
Masonic Club vs . Land & Development Office & Ors. ... on 21 July, 2015
Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE13
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
PPA No. 02/2013
Masonic Club
Through its Hony. Gen.Secretary
Qudsia Garden, Civil Lines, Delhi .....Appellant
Versus
1. Land & Development Office
Nirman Bhawan
Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Kesar Das Janagal
Estate Officer
Land & Development Officer
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi.
3. Jamna Lodge
Through its Secretary
Qudsia Garden, Civil Lines, Delhi. ....Respondents
Date of institution : 25.07.2000
Date of reserving order : 28.05.2015
Date of decision : 21.07.2015
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.07.2000 passed by Sh. Kesar Dass Jangal, Estate Officer.
2. The respondent no.1 i.e. Land & Development Office had filed a plaint through Sh. Lajpat Rai, Assistant Settlement Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of PPA No. 02/2013 Page 1 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971, which is reproduced as under:
"IN THE COURT OF ESTATE OFFICER Union of India Vs. Masonic Club Six tennis courts in Qudisia Garden were allotted to "Masonic Club" on yearly basis by the erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Civil station, Delhi in 1946. The conditions of allotment interalia, were that the "Club" would pay the ground rent yearly in advance and that the allottee shall have no authority to sublet the ground.
In addition to the above, two strips of additional land measuring about 3450 sq. ft. and 4750 sq. ft. on a yearly basis at a concessional rate of Rs. 2/ per mesum excluding cost of water and maintenance charges were allotted to the "Masonic Club" on 25.7.1947. The temporary lease of six tennis courts alongwith the additional land was renewed by the erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Civil Station, Delhi on yearly basis upto 30.9.1958 one of the conditions at the time of renewal of lease of play ground was that the allottee shall ensure that the ground is not used by outsiders or for any purpose other than that for which it was allotted. As per the records available all the lands belonging to the erstwhile Notified Area Committee were transferred to this office in 1958. The total area with the "Club" and the six tennis courts was 7145 sq. yds. or 5974 sq. mets(1.476 acres).
The terms for extension of temporary allotment of six tennis courts with additional land in Qudsia Garden in favour of "Masonic Club" upto 30.9.70 was offered by this office on 19.5.1970 subject to certain terms and conditions(Annexure A). From the records it is seen that they did not comply with it and hence the extension of temporary lease was not granted beyond 30.9.1958. Thereafter the "Club" is unauthorised occupant of the Govt. land i.e. Public Premises.
On 1.12.97, notice was issued to the "Masonic Club" for vacation of the site and hand over the possession. Instead of vacating the site, they filed a suit in the Lower Court(Suit No. 1223/98). The Lower court vide its order dt.11.5.99 ordered that the defendant i.e. UOI is restrained from forcibly dispossessing plaintiff i.e. Masonic Club except by following the PPA No. 02/2013 Page 2 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 due process of law. It was also stated by the Hon'ble Court that the defendant i.e. UOI can proceed ahead after following the mandatory procedure under the PPE Act 1971.
ESO may kindly proceed under PPE Act for eviction of unauthorised occupant(s) from the land which was allotted to "Masonic Club". It is seen that the area under misuse of the "Club" was 2864 sq. mts. as per the Inspection Report of 1997 in additions to the other area used for "Club" and Court measuring 3110 sq. mts. The "Masonic Club" has occupied and used the public premises without any authority. Hence the "Club" is liable to pay the damages for the period from which the land was under its unauthorised occupation i.e. 1.10.1958 as per annexure B. (Lajpat Rai) Assistant Settlement Commissioner"
3. The trial court record shows that Sh. Lajpat Rai, Assistant Settlement Commissioner filed another application dated 08.05.2000 to Estate Officer requesting him that since the club is unauthorised occupant of Government land since 01.10.1958, action may be taken for eviction of the Masonic Club. I reproduce the application as under :
"No.LIII/8/3(42)/2000/PT/170 Dated 08.05.2000 Sub: Unauthorised occupation of Govt. land by "Masonic Club"
action for eviction under PPE Act.
The "Masonic Club" was alloted land on temporary basis measuring 7145 sq. yds. or 5974 sq. mts. The offer for extension of temporary lease from 1.10.58 to 30.9.70 was given to the Club on 19.5.70 but it was not complied with. The Club is, therefore, unathorised occupant of Govt. land since 1.10.1958.
ESO may please take action for eviction under PPE Act. A plaint is attached. A copy of the notice issued to the Club may be sent to the undersigned immediately.
(Lajpat Rai) PPA No. 02/2013 Page 3 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Assistant Settlement Commissioner"
4. The Estate Officer issued the notice of this plaint to Masonic Club, the appellant herein. Reply was filed by Masonic Club before the Estate Officer. In preliminary objection no.8 the Masonic Club stated that they are the lessee of a portion of the premises whereas remaining portion of the premises is held by the respondent as a tenant of M/s Jamuna Lodge Society. Now I reproduce the relevant portion of the reply of the Masonic Club/ appellant herein filed before the Estate Officer under the heading of "BRIEF FACTS: as under:
"1. That the respondent is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Since 1944 the Membership of the respondent runs into hundreds. The members, their families, guests as well as the citizens of Delhi and the nearby areas frequent to the Club for social activities. As a result of the efforts put in by the respondent, the Club has acquired a name and has been functioning and carrying out its operations uninterrupted for past about 60 years.
2. That in the year 1946, place for six tennis courts with adjacent land was allotted to the respondent by the then Notified Area Committee, Civil Station, Delhi, on lease, with the option to respondent to get the same renewed on yearly basis. The respondent has been in possession and occupation of the portion of land in Qudsia Gardens, Civil Lines Area, Opposite I.S.B.T., Delhi, since then. The said portion of land consists of besides the Six Tennis Courts, the Clubs building, lawns and open places for carrying out its day to day functions.
3. That in and around June 1947, the respondent applied to the said Notified Area Committee, Civil Station, Delhi, for allotment of additional land measuring about 3450 sq. feet and 4750 sq. feet abutting the club lawns and tennis courts.PPA No. 02/2013 Page 4 / 44
Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Vide letter No. 2544/OS dated 25th July 1947, the Notified Area Committee alloted the said pieces of land to the respondent at concessional rates of Rs. 2/ p.m. In the year 1947 the said Notified Area Committee also allowed the respondent to convert one of the grass courts in to a Bajri Court for its use on the clear understanding that the respondent would bear the expenses for preparation of the said Bajri Court. Thereafter the lease was renewed on yearly basis and the procedure followed was that prior to the expiry of the lease period the said Notified Area Committee used to send a communication enquiring whether the respondent would like to seek extension of the lease for further period. The respondent accepted the offers and got the lease renewed from year to year. After India became independent from the British Rule the said Notified Area Committee ceased to exist and the petitioner claimed rights in respect of the said portion of the land and believing the representations of the petitioner to be true, the respondent continued to seek renewed of the lease as and when due. As a result the said six tennis courts and two additional grounds/land, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, are in peaceful, uninterrupted and continuous physical possession and occupation of the respondent since 1946/1947 till date."
I may point out that in the reply reproduced above, Land and Development Office has been referred to as "petitioner" and Masonic Club i.e. the appellant herein has been referred to as "respondent".
5. In the remaining portion of their reply, the Masonic Club blamed the L&DO department from not executing the necessary documents to execute the lease deeds in favour of Masonic Club. Masonic Club also stated that one Special Secretary to Lt. Governor of Delhi wanted membership and exclusive facilities of the Club to some PPA No. 02/2013 Page 5 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 persons and since Management of the Club did not accede to the said requests being in contravention of the objects rules etc. of the Society of the Club, it led to causing of harassment of the Club. Accordingly, the Club instituted a suit of permanent injunction against MCD and office of Special Secretary to Lt. Governor. Sh. M. C. Garg, the then Additional District Judge, Delhi restrained the defendants therein from interfering with the possession of respondents till further orders. Another suit for permanent injunction was filed by the Club against Union of India and L&DO department and vide order dated 11.05.1999 Sh. Sanjay Garg, Ld. Civil Judge restrained the L&DO department from forcibly dispossessing the Club except by following due process of law.
6. In order to proceed as per law, the Estate Officer was required to determine the Government land under unauthorised occupation. Therefore, a statement of Sh. D. N. Khattar, the area Inchrge, L&DO was recorded on 06.07.2000 which is reproduced as under :
"Statement of Shri D. N. Khattar, on oath working in this office since 1972 I am area incharge of the disputed land and my submission is that the Masonic Club is in unauthorised occupation of government land of 1.476 acres w.e.f. 1958. The temporary lease was extended by this office vide allotment letter No.3(216) stoke 60 dated 3.8.1962 for the temporary allotment of 6 Tennis PPA No. 02/2013 Page 6 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Courts and Club with additional land. The Club was required to pay vide this order Rs.880/ as arrears of ground rent for the period ending 30.9.1958. However, the Club paid sum Rs. 780/ leaving a balance of Rs. 100/ vide this letter No. LIII/8/3(38)/68 dt. 19.5.1970. The occupation was therefore beyond 30.9.1958 was unauthorised vide above referred letter No. LIII/8/3(38) 68 the club was informed that the President of India will be pleased to regularise the unauthorised occupation by way of extension of temporary lease for the period from 1.10.58 to 30.9.1970 provided the following terms and conditions are complied with in full in advance but the terms were not complied with by the party. Exhibit P.1. The terms and conditions are is as under - as per the letter No. LIII/8/3(38)/68 dt. 19.5.1970. The area in unauthorised occupation stated above has been shown on a part plan NAC sheet No.1 marked in red outline. The bifurcated of the area is as under:
i) Masonic Club 0.159 acre
ii) Marriage pandal(under misuse)0.707 acre
iii)For tennis courts 0.61 acres.
The club is liable to pay unauthorised occupation charges amounting to Rs. 2,66,12,260 for the period from 1.10.58 to 31.4.2000. The amount includes other charges as per details given in schedule II given in notice ESO/114(17)/2000 stroke 2000 dated 9.5.2000."
7. After hearing the parties, the Estate Officer passed the impugned order dated 17.7.2000, which is fully reproduced as under:
"IN THE COURT OF ESTATE OFFICER: LAND & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE: NIRMAN BHAWAN: NEW DELHI UOI Vs. Masonic Club CASE NO.L&DO/ESO/113(2)/2000 ORDER
1. A plaint was filed by the Union of India through Land & Development Office for eviction of unauthorised occupants on Public Premises of the six Tennis Courts and additional strip of land at Qudsia Garden(measuring 7145 sq. yds. or 5974 sq.m. =1.476 acres) The Schedule of the Public Premises under unauthorised occupation of the PPA No. 02/2013 Page 7 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Masonic Club is as under : SCHEDULE Public premises measuring 1.476 acres situated at Qudsia Garden, Civil Lines, Delhi and bounded by as follows:
1. On the North: Jamuna Road
2. On the South: Qudsia Garden
3. On the East: Qudsia Garden
4. On the West: Qudsia Garden
2. As per records and the written statements filed by the plaintiff, i.e., Union of India(Land & Development Office) the six Tennis Courts in Qudsia Garden were allotted to Masonic Club on yearly basis by the erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Civil Station, Delhi in 1946. The conditions of allotment, interalia, stipulated that the Club would pay the ground rent yearly in advance and that the allottee shall have no authority to sublet the ground.
3. In addition to the above, two strips of additional land measuring about 3450 sq.ft. And 4750 sq.ft. on a yearly basis at a concessional rate of Rs.2/ per mensum excluding cost of water and maintenance charges were allotted by the Notified Area Committee to the Masonic Club on 25.7.1947. The temporary lease of the six tennis courts alongwith the additional land was renewed by the erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Civil Station, Delhi on yearly basis upto 30.9.1958. One of the conditions stipulated at the time of renewal of lease of Tennis Courts was that the allottee shall ensure that the ground is not used by outsiders or for any purpose other than that for which it was allotted. As per the records available all the lands belonging to the erstwhile Notified Area Committee were transferred to the Land & Development Office in 1958. The total area of six tennis courts and additional strip of land with Masonic Club is 7145 sq.yds. Or 5974 sq.mts(1.476 acres).
4. The terms for extension of temporary allotment of six tennis courts with additional land in Qudsia Garden in favour of Masonic Clubs upto 30.9.1970 was offered by the Land & Development Office on 19.5.1970 subject to certain terms and conditions (Annexure 'A'). From the records, it is seen that the Club did not comply with these PPA No. 02/2013 Page 8 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 terms and hence the extension of temporary lease was not granted beyond 30.9.1958. Thereafter, the Club is in unauthorised occupation of the said Government land i.e. Public Premises.
5. On 1.12.1997, notice was issued to the Masonic Club for vacation of the site and for handing over the possession to the Land & Development Office. Instead of vacating the site, the Club filed a suit in the Court of Shri Sanjay Garg, Civil Judge, Delhi(Suit No.1223/97). The Court, vide its Order dated 11.5.1999, ordered that the Defendant, i.e., UOI is restrained from forcibly dispossessing plaintiff, i.e., Masonic Club, except by following the mandatory procedure under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
6. On receipt of the plaint, a show cause notice dated 9.5.2000 under Subsection 1 and Clause b(ii) of Sub section 2 of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 was served upon the Respondent through Special Messenger and through Regd. A.D. On 23.5.2000, Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate appeared before this Court for and on behalf of the Respondent and filed a Vakalatnama and requested for some more time for filing reply/ objection to the show cause notice. Shri Lajpat Rai, Asstt. Settlement Commissioner appeared for and on behalf of the Union of India and objected to giving of further time in public interest. On 20.5.2000, the Respondent filed the reply/objection to the show cause notice. Counterreply was filed by the Department on 1.6.2000.
7. Shri Lajpat Rai, Asstt. Settlement Commissioner who appeared on behalf of the Department submitted that the Respondent failed to submit any document in support of their contention despite sufficient time given to them.
The representative of the petitioner also submitted that the Respondent was making efforts to divert the attention of the Court by various delaying tactics. It was, therefore, requested that no further time should be granted to the Respondent Club and appropriate Order be passed. On 3.7.2000 the Department filed some more documents, through Shri L. D. Ganotra, Engineer Officer, who appeared on behalf of the Department(plaintiff). Shri PPA No. 02/2013 Page 9 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Deepak Jain, Advocate of the respondent filed three applications one for recovery of damages, second for, eviction and the third under order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC. He also filed some more documents on behalf of the respondent.
8. On 19.6.2000 both the parties were present and on oath, statement of Sh. D.N. Khattar, Overseer of the Department, was also recorded.
9. I have heard both the parties and gone through the records of the case. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the premise is not a Public Premise and the land does not fall within the jurisdiction of Land & Development Office. However, respondent has failed to produce any documents to prove that the land does not belong to Land & Development Office. On the other hand, the documents filed by the petitioner indicate that the premises is a Government Land and the same was temporarily allotted to Masonic Club. The said allotment expired on 1.10.1958. Thereafter, it appears that no further extension was given to the Club. All these documents indicate that the premise is Central Government property. The authority under which the Public premises was allotted to the Club has been withdrawn. Hence, in my opinion, the property is a Public Premise and there is no force in the submission of the respondent.
10. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondent that they are utilizing the land as a tenant of Jamuna Lodge. To prove their contention respondent has filed several rent receipts issued by the Lodge. I have carefully examined the documents/receipts filed by the respondent. The documents do not confirm that the Lodge is the owner of the property. On the other hand Land & Development Office has furnished documentary evidence to prove that the property is a Public Premise.
11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the respondent is unauthorised occupant of the Public Premise I am, therefore, satisfied that the respondent is in occupation of the Government land i.e., Public Premise unauthorisedly, as per section 2 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, PPA No. 02/2013 Page 10 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 1971.
12. I, therefore, order that the respondent, i.e. Masonic Club, or any other person, who are in unauthorised occupation of abovementioned Public Premises shall be evicted. This order under section 5(1) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 shall be affixed at the outer door or any other conspicuous part of the above premises.
(KESAR DASS JANGAL) ESTATE OFFICER"
8. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 9 of Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. During the pendency of this appeal, applicant Jamna Lodge filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which was allowed by Sh. R. P. Pandey, Ld. ADJ vide order dated 10.09.05 wherein it was held that the applicant was a necessary party for disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, Jamna Lodge was impleaded as respondent no.3.
9. Before proceeding further, I would like to put on record the case of Jamna Lodge presented by them before this court. Their grievance is that the Estate Officer never issued any notice to them despite the fact that they are in occupation of Jamna Hall, which is one premises/piece of land out of three pieces of land mentioned in the impugned order. The case of respondent no.3 has been written in detail in their application under Order 1 Rule 10 PPA No. 02/2013 Page 11 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 CPC. I would like to reproduce the entire application as under :
"AN APPLICATION FILD ON BEHALF OF LODGE JUMNA NO. 18 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 OF CPC FOR BEING IMPLEADED AS A PARTY TO THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2000 PASSED BY THE ESTATE OFFICER UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE PUBLIC PREMISES ACT.
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the applicant who has filed the present application for being impleaded as a party in the present appeal is an institution of ancient freemasons which is an association of persons and the members thereof profess Freemasonary besides being involved in other charitable activities which include running of free dispensaries, charitable hospitals and schools. Freemasonary is being practiced in different countries from times immemorial and came to India about 200 years ago. The institutions practicing Freemasonary are known as Loges and the building from which they operate and which contains the temple also are known as freemason Halls. Mr. P.N. Mathur is a Freemason and is a member of the applicant institution. Presently, he is the Master of the Lodge Jumna No.18 GLI, applicant herein. The present application is filed through him in a representative capacity on his own behalf and on behalf of Lodge Jumna No.18 GLI.
2. That Qudsia Gardens are situate in a demarcated area of land next to the inter State Bus Terminus and have been in existence for more than a century. In the precincts of Qudsia gardens, there was an old building which was being used by the Freemasons during the British regime as the Freemasons Hall and temple. On or about the year 1898, some of the then Freemasons made a formal request for granting the said land and building officially to them for use as a Masonic Lodge and carrying out the activities relating to Freemasonary. The Municipal Committee vide its Resolution No.5 dated August 15, 1898 agreed to grant free of charge the said old building situate in Qudsia Gardens for use as a Freemasons Lodge by the then members of the Lodge. In this regard the Municipal Secretary issued a letter No.277 dated PPA No. 02/2013 Page 12 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 September 1, 1898 conveying the acceptance of the request and granting and setting the said building along with land appurtenant thereto to Jumna Lodge. The said letter was signed by one Mr. F.Hurley, the then Secretary to the Municipal Committee. The said grant was subject to the following conditions as contained in the Resolution dated 15.8.1898 which is extracted as under:
(i) That the Freemasons will vacate it if the place is at any time required for public purpose.
(ii) That no compensation will be given by the Committee or government if vacation is necessary.
(iii) That no building or buildings material will be removed by the Freemasons if they are required to vacate.
(iv) That the building is only to be used for the purpose for which it is sanctioned and that under no circumstances will it be allowed to be used for a dwelling house either temporarily or permanently.
Reference to the above grant finds place in th records in possession of the Estate Officer/respondent no.2. True copy of the extract of the said record is annexed herewith and marked as AnnexureP1.
3. That the above conditions were accepted by the Jumna Lodge in its meeting held on September, 6, 1898. Since the original instrument of grant is not available but the subject matter finds reference in the minutes of the proceedings of the Jumna Lodge held on September, 6, 1898. A true copy of the same is annexed herewith as AnnexureP2.
4. That the Jumna Lodge, also referred to as Lodge Jumna No. 18, GLI, repaired the building known as Freemasons Hall, which houses the temple, the main hall and other service rooms attached to it. It continued with its activities through its members.
5. That Lodge Jumna as amongst its activities, charitable projects including running of dispensaries, hospitals, schools etc. as charitable institutions whose funding is done mostly by donations received from the members of the Lodge.
6. That during the British days some masons had set up a club shown as Masonic Club, which was independent of and distinct from Lodge Jumna. They had been using the Tennis Courts and play Grounds situated south of the said building that was granted to and settled upon the applicant herein.
PPA No. 02/2013 Page 13 / 44Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Some time in the year 1944 Jumna Lodge allowed Masonic Club, the user of a portion of its building as a licensee.
7. That in the year 1946, the said Masonic Club applied to the Notified Area Committee, Civil Station, Delhi for allotment of land for its recreational activities and the same Committee allotted six Tennis Courts in Qudsia Gardens to Masonic Club on yearly basis subject to payment of some ground rent. This portion of the land allotted directly to Masonic Club is not the subject matter of any dispute since it was never allotted to Jumna Lodge. This, however, constitutes one of the portions marked in 'pink' in the plan AnnexureP3 in respect whereof orders have been passed by respondent no.2 but are not being disputed herein.
8. That the Masonic Club again approached the Notified Area Committee for grant of an additional plot of land for use by the Club members for its own recreational activities and on 25.7.1947 this second plot of land was allotted to Masonic Club against a nominal payment. One of the conditions attached to such grant was that Masonic Club would ensure that the ground was not used by outsiders or for any purpose other than for which it was allotted. This second plot of land is also not the subject matter of challenge, since this plot/strip of land was allotted directly to the Masonic Club. However, this is the second strip of land which is marked in 'pink' the plan annexed as AnnexureP3 in respect where of orders have been passed by respondent no.2 but are not being disputed herein.
9. That the Hon;ble Estate Officer in its Order dated 17.7.2000 referring to two strips of additional land measuring about 3450 sq. feet and 4750 sq. feet in paragraph no.3 of the order has held that the land is allotted to Masonic Club on 25.7.1947. That the Estate Officer has wrongly assumed one of the strips to have been granted to the Masonic Club, in which the building of the Lodge described as Club House by the Estate Officer is situated. It is this land and building which is marked in the plan in 'blue' that has been wrongly assumed to have been allotted to Masonic Club. Infact, the said land was Granted/settled in favour of Lodge Jumna, applicant herein August, 1898, over which the then exist6ing building was then repaired/renovated by the Lodge and its members. It is this part of the Eviction Order passed by the PPA No. 02/2013 Page 14 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Estate Officer which pertains to the building owned and possessed by Lodge Jumna, which the applicant is aggrieved. The other two plot/strips of land allotted to Masonic Club directly by the then Notified Area Committee, whose functions are stated to have been taken over by the Land and Development Officer of the Union of India subsequently, are marked in 'pink'. A true copy of the said plan showing the three properties/plots of land in Qudsia Gardens, which is duly signed by the Building Officer and Engineer Officer of the Land and Development Office, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi is annexed herewith and marked as AnnexureP3.
10. That in or about the year 1962 the applicant, who had allowed Masonic Club to use a portion of its building as a licensee, felt that the Masonic Club i.e. appellant herein was obstructing the functioning and carrying of activities/programs of Lodge Jumna and requested members of the Masonic Club to stop using the premises. On their failure to do so, the applicant was constrained to file a suit on 24.11.1962 for permanent injunction restraining Masonic Club and its members from entering the premises of Lodge Jumna and particularly the property in dispute known as Freemasons Hall(marked in 'blue' in the plan annexed as Annexure P3). The suit was filed in a representative capacity on behalf of members of Lodge Jumna and also against the members of Masonic Club invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This suit was decreed in favour of Lodge Jumna by the Court of Sh. V. K. Kaushal, SubJudge 1st Class, Delhi on 31.8.1966. The First appeal filed by Masonic Club was dismissed by Shri B. L. Nagpal, Additional District Judge, Delhi on 10.4.1968. The second appeal preferred by Masonic Club before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court being RSA No. 179 of 1968 was also dismissed on March 5, 1970. Thereafter, the Letters patent Appeal being LPA no. 54 of 1970 filed on behalf of the Masonic Club was also dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated August, 7, 1970. Thus, the orders became final and binding on the said Masonic Club and its members. For ready reference, copies of the judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Single Judge and the Division Bench are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P4 and P5 respectively.
11. That thereafter the applicant filed an Execution in the PPA No. 02/2013 Page 15 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Executing Court before the concerned SubJudge at Delhi, in which Masonic Club has sought time to relocate itself elsewhere and comply with the decree passed against it and as per the last orders passed, the said Masonic club has sought and been granted time up to March 31, 2001 to stop the user of the property in question vide orders dated 18th September, 1998 passed by the Court of Ms. Nisha Saxena.
12. That since there were some complaints against the Masonic Club using the plots/strips of land allotted to it, for commercial purposes by erecting a marriage pandal and letting it out the Estate Officer had issued show cause notices to the masonic Club for misuse of the plots/strips of land allotted to it as also for nonpayment of the charges for the said plots/strips, on or about 9.5.2000. After summarily concluding the proceedings the Estate Officer passed two orders dated 17.7.2000, one being order in Case No. L&DO/ESO/113(2)/2000 for eviction of Masonic Club and all persons in occupation of the subject premises and second being order in case No. L&DO/ESO/113(2)/2000 came to the notice of the applicant when they were pasted at the entrance of the building, which belongs to applicant and is marked in 'blue' in the plan annexed to this petition as Annexure P3. Respondent No.2 has also issued two notices dated 17.7.2000 giving time for compliance of these orders. Copies of these two orders and two notices are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/6 to P/9 respectively.
13. That on further enquiries being made by applicant herein through its members, it was reveled that the Estate Officer had on his record evidence to show that the Freemasons Hall, marked in 'blue' in the plan annexed as Annexure P3, was granted to and settled upon the applicant. The plan relied upon by the Estate Officer, copy whereof has been annexed and marked as Annexure P3, shows the other two properties allotted to Masonic Club, which have been marked in 'pink'. The said plan in fact shows the inscription "Masonic Lodge above the property marked in 'blue', but the Estate Officer has ignored the existence and identity of the applicant.
14. That a perusal of the documents will show that the Learned Estate officer, Respondent no.2, has erred in including the building situated in Qudsia Gardens as belonging to the Masonic Club and despite the fact that Masonic Club has PPA No. 02/2013 Page 16 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 pleaded that they were tenants of Jumna Lodge applicant herein, the Estate Officer did not deem it necessary to issue any notice to Jumna Lodge. This is also despite the fact that in the plan Annexure P3 the notation 'Masonic Lodge' has been shown and yet the Estate officer has acted in an arbitrary and biased manner, throwing all the principles of natural justice and rules of law to the winds.
15. That it is further stated that the property in question is being used by Lodge Jumna in line wit the objectives of Freemasonary and no commercial or profit marking activity is being carried on by the applicant from the said premises. As such, there has been no breach of the condition of the original grant and, in these circumstances, there is, in any case, no cause for the Estate Officer to initiate any action in respect of the property in question against Lodge Jumna No. 18 G.L.I.
16. That no public purpose with respect to the property in question for which it may be required has so far been notified and, in these circumstances also, there is no cause for initiation of any action by respondent no.2 against applicant with regard to the subject property shown in 'blue; in AnnexureP3.
17. That the Estate Officer/Respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction in respect of the building of the applicant herein and the land appurtenant thereto situated at Qudsia Garden, Delhi.
18. That on coming to know of the order dated 17.7.2000, when the same were pasted on the entrance of the building which belongs to the applicant herein, a writ petition bearing No. 5660 of 2000 was filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble Court after hearing the matter at length was pleased to observe that the objections raised by the applicant herein are valid, however, it will be more appropriate if the same are raised before the Appellate Authority. A copy of the order dated 25th September, 2000 is annexed hereto as AnnexureP10.
19. That the Estate Officer erred both on facts and in law in assuming that the plots/strip of land over which the property of Jamuna Lodge exists since 1898, was allotted to Masonic Club on 25.7.1947 and as such proceedings on a wrong premise in passing Eviction Orders against Masonic Club as also all persons in occupation of the said premises. If the PPA No. 02/2013 Page 17 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 order of the Estate Officer is not set side the same is likely to prejudice and affect the working of the applicant institution and may also lead to closure of the institute causing hardship to its member and other beneficiaries.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) allow the present application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, as it is both a necessary and an effected party;
(b) order or direction quashing the orders/notices dated 17.7.2000 passed by respondent no.2(AnnexureP6 to P9) in relation to the property owned, held, occupied and possessed by the applicant which is shown in blue in annexureP3).
(c) order or direction prohibiting respondent no.1 and 2 from interfering with the possession of the property and land appurtenant thereto as shown in blue in Annexure P3, which is owned held possessed and occupied by applicant, except in accordance with law after meeting the condition of the grant thereof;
(d) pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Applicant Through:
Anurag D. Mathur, Advocate"
10. L&DO filed a reply to this application. Para 6, 7 & 8 of the same are reproduced as under:
"6. That the premises in question was allotted on temporary basis to Masonic Club in 1946 and 1947 by the erstwhile Notified Area Committee and the same was renewed by the NAC, Delhi on yearly basis upto 30.9.1958. All lands under the control of NAC were transferred to the Land & Development Office in 1958.(Copy enclosed as Annexure R1)
7. That all court proceedings between Jamuna Lodge & Masonic Club mentioned in the application are clear concealment on the part of both Applicant & Masonic Club as PPA No. 02/2013 Page 18 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 the Land & Development Office, the lessor was never made a party to the proceedings.
8. That the Masonic Club was allotted an area of 1.476 acres and the eviction order has been passed for the same area (as shown in the Site plan) and all averments contrary to it are false and mischievous. The break up of the said area allotted to Masonic Club is as under:
In 1946 allotment was made for 0.159 acres
In 1947 allotment was made for 0.707 acres
In 1947 allotment was made for 0.610 acres
1.476 acres"
11. In view of the case of the parties before the Estate Officer and thereafter before this court, I proceed to decide the present appeal under following heads :
12. Whether Estate officer did not afford fair opportunities to appellant to present their case.
Ld. Counsel for appellant has raised many objections in the appeal, for example, the appellant was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses and the order was passed without permitting opportunity to lead evidence and file the documents by the appellant. I have perused the entire record. On perusal of the trial court record, I find that the appellant has not brought on record anything to show that they are having any right to remain in the suit property. Further as per Section 5 of Public Premises Act, the Estate Officer is required to consider the evidence proved by the person in occupation of the Government land. But in this case no such evidence was led by the appellant before the PPA No. 02/2013 Page 19 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Estate Officer. Hence, I find no substance in the submission of appellant that he was not given opportunity to lead evidence or to cross examine witnesses. To my mind, Estate Officer is not required to conduct a full fledged trial. Rather he is to see as to whether Government land is occupied by someone unauthorisedly. If the occupant is able to show any right in the same, the Estate Officer can drop the proceedings. Otherwise, he has to pass an eviction order.
It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for appellant that proper opportunity was not given by the Estate Officer to address arguments and to place the documents on record. I have perused the trial court and I find that the Estate Officer had been extremely liberal in granting adjournments to the appellant herein despite strong objections by the L&DO. Therefore, the appellant cannot complain that enough opportunity was not given to him by Estate Officer to put his case properly.
13. Whether the properties in question are not public premises and thus Estate Officer has no power to pass eviction order?
A legal issue, which is the main argument of appellant, has been raised by Ld. Counsel for appellant submitting PPA No. 02/2013 Page 20 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 that the Notified Area Committee had allotted the land in question to the appellant herein and that as per the DMC Act, 1957, the Notified Area Committee was succeeded by Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Hence, it is argued that only MCD could have proceeded to evict the appellant from the premises in question and L&DO i.e. respondent no.1 has no authority to proceed against the appellant.
Ld. counsel for appellant has drawn my attention to Second Schedule to Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, which is reproduced as under:
The Second Schedule (See Sections 99, 286, 504, 511 and 516) BODIES AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES WHOSE FUNCTIONS ARE TAKEN OVER BY THE CORPORATION
1. The Municipal Committee, Delhi.
2. The Notified Area Committee, Civil Station.
3. The Notified Area Committee, Red Fort.
4. The Municipal Committe, DelhiShahdara.
5. The Municipal Committe, West Delhi.
6. The Municipal Committe, South Delhi.
7. The Notified Area Committee, Mehrauli.
8. The Notified Area Committee, Najafgarh.
9. The Notified Area Committee, Narela.
10.The District Board, Delhi.
11.The Delhi State Electricity Board.
12.(omitted by Act 71 of 1971)
13.The Delhi Joint Water and Sewage Board. It is submitted that the property in question fall in the PPA No. 02/2013 Page 21 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 jurisdiction of the Notified Area Committee, civil station and now by virtue of DMC Act, its jurisdiction have been taken over by MCD. Therefore, it is argued that Land & Development Office, which is a department of Central Government does not have any jurisdiction over the suit property and the eviction proceedings could have been initiated only by MCD. Thus, it is argued that the Estate Officer acted without jurisdiction.
Although, I agree that Notified Area Committee was succeeded by MCD. However, MCD is a civic Agency whereas the land vests with the Central Govt. I would like to refer to Section 2(e)(3) of Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 which defines "Public Premises". As per this provision, 'public premises' in relation to the 'National Capital Territory of Delhi' means:
(i) any premises belonging to Municipal Corporation of Delhi, or any Municipal Committee or Notified Area Committee
(ii) any premises belonging to Delhi Development Authority, whether such premises are in possession of, or leased out by, the said authority and
(iii) any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of any State Government or the Government of any Union Territory.
The above provisions makes clear that whether this land belonging to Central Government or to the State PPA No. 02/2013 Page 22 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Government or to DDA or to MCD or any authority, the same is a "public premises' under this Act and therefore, the property in question is not only a public premises but the Estate Officer has full authority to evict any unauthorised occupant from the suit property. Admittedly, as per submissions of appellant, the land was alloted to them by Notified Area Committee. Hence, the plea of appellant that the land in question is not a public premises and that the land belongs to the Notified Area Committee/MCD and not to Central Government/L&DO, thereby barring the jurisdiction of Estate Officer, is meritless.
14. Whether Land & Development Office is required to prove that it is the owner of premises in question?
Before discussing this point, I would like to mention that the appeal file is in a bad shape. As per rules, the parties should file documents with a proper list of documents, which has not been done here. Hence a lot of confusion. Such confusion is also seen in the proceedings before the Estate Officer. A careful perusal of appeal record would show that documents filed with marking of P1, P2 & so on were filed by respondent no.3 and documents with marking of R1 were filed by respondent PPA No. 02/2013 Page 23 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 no.1.
On the basis of R1, the L&DO (respondent no.1) has claimed that the Nazul Lands of Delhi were transferred to L&DO. I reproduce the said letter as under :
"ANNEXURE - R1 MOST IMMEDIATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION DELHI No. F.5/15/58LSG. (iii) dated the 31st March, 1958 From Shri K. G. Mathur Secretary (Local SelfGovt.) Delhi Admn., Delhi.
To The Commissioner of Local Authorities. Delhi.
Sir, I am directed to state that the Chief Commissioner has, in accordance with the instructions received from the Government of India decided that the Nazul lands, the Management of which was entrusted to Notified Area Committee, Fort, Delhi vide letter No. 3650 L0D.4) dated 17th September, 1936 from the Government of India, late Defence Department Simla to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi should be resumed from the Notified Area Committed, Fort. I am to request that this land, alongwith the records pertaining thereto, may be handed over to the Land and Development Officer, New Delhi, immediately.
Yours faithfully, Sd/ (K.G. Mthur) Secretary (Local selfGovt.) Delhi Admn.
Delhi.
No. 5/15/58SLG (iii) dated the 31st March, 1958 Copy forwarded to the Land and Development Officer, New Delhi for information, with the request that he should take charge of PPA No. 02/2013 Page 24 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 land, hitherto managed by the Notified Area Committee, alongwith the records pertaining thereto, and memo arrangement their management, as in the case of other Nazul lands.
Sd/ (K.G. Mathur) Secretary (Local SelfGovt.) Delhi Adm. Delhi"
Further, as per reply of appellant before the Estate Officer (relevant portion of which has been reproduced in para 4 of this judgement). It is stated by the appellant that after India became independent, the L&DO claimed right over these properties. I may point out that it is Central Government, who appointed the Estate Officer under Section 3 of Public Premises Act 1971. I have already discussed that all Government lands in Delhi by virtue of Section 2(e)(3) of Public Premises Act fall under the definition of "Public Premises". Admittedly, the appellant as well as respondent no.3 got these properties on license from the Government Agencies. Therefore, the Estate Officer is not required to go into the question as to how the lands in question were transferred by notified area committee to L&DO. Respondent no.1 is a department of Government of India. Delhi being a Union Territory, all the "public premises" are owned by Government of India. Therefore, I have no doubt that Government of India PPA No. 02/2013 Page 25 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 through its department L&DO is the owner of all these three pieces of land.
15. Relationship between Masonic Club and respondent no.3.
It is alleged that respondent no.3 in his application, contents of which have already been reproduced, that Masonic Club is distinct from respondent no.3. It was alleged that Masonic Club was granted a portion of Jamuna Hall for their use by respondent no.3 as a licensee. It is alleged that the members of respondent no.3 had to file a civil suit, wherein a relief was sought to restrain the members of Masonic Club (i.e. appellant herein) from using the premises/building of respondent no.3. This suit was decreed by Sh. V. K. Kaushal, Ld. Sub Judge, First Class vide judgement dated 31.8.1966. The judgement and decree were challenged to the Higher Courts, who upheld the same. The copies of these judgements were placed on record by respondent no.3 along with the application. Interestingly, the appellant had also relied upon these judgements by filing the same before the Estate Officer. The trial court record shows that L&DO has not denied the correctness of these documents. Before this court, respondent no.1 i.e. L&DO has submitted that it was PPA No. 02/2013 Page 26 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 not a party in the said litigation and that appellant and respondent no.3 are colluding with each other so as to delay these proceedings. I have considered these submissions and I am of the opinion that L&DO was at liberty to verify the correctness of the judgement dated 31.8.1966. Since, L&DO did not assail the correctness of the copies of these judgements before the trial court as well as before this court, I am convinced that appellant and respondent no.3 are not colluding with each other. I also finds substance in the submissions that Masonic Club was using the Masonic Hall/Jamuna Hall as a licensee of respondent no.3. Therefore, so far as the premises of the building named Masonic Hall/Jamuna Hall is concerned, appellant was a licensee to respondent no.3 and not of respondent no.1. Hence, I hold that respondent no.3 only is licensee of respondent no.1 in respect of the building called Masonic Hall/Jamuna Hall. It appears that the L&DO and Estate Officer issued notices to Masonic Club because they presumed that it is the Masonic Club, which is their licensee in respect of the Masonic Hall, perhaps due to the similarity of the name of the Hall and the Club. However, the copies of the litigation filed by the appellant itself before the Estate Officer make it clear PPA No. 02/2013 Page 27 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 that it were the fraternity of freemasons, who were the licensee in respect of the Masonic Hall, whereas Masonic Club was licensee of the respondent no.3, the freemasons.
16. Description of the Public Premises in question.
Due to some defect in drafting of plaint by L&DO before Estate Officer, confusion arises as to whether the notice has been issued in respect of 2 strips of lands i.e. 6 Tennis Courts and additional land or whether it is in respect of 3 pieces of land including a building known as Jamuna Hall. I may point that respondent no.3 is claiming a right over it. However, careful perusal of the plaint by Sh. Lajpat Rai, Assistant Settlement Commissioner and the impugned order discloses that the order is in respect of all the 3 pieces of land. L&DO had filed a site plan before the Estate Officer specifically marking three pieces of land mentioning them as "M. CLUB", "Marriage Pandal" and "Tennis Courts". I may mention that during the course of this appeal, respondent no.3 filed a copy of this site plan adding blue colour on piece of land/building, which respondent no.3 claims to be occupying, and adding red colour to 2 strips of lands i.e. Marriage Pandal and tennis courts in red colour. This demarcation has not been denied by any party during the appeal.
PPA No. 02/2013 Page 28 / 44Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 The respondent no.1 and 2 have filed an inspection report conducted by Sh. L. D. Ganotra, Engineer Officer of respondent no.1 and 2 before this court in which it was stated that Jamuna Lodge is part and parcel of 0.159 acre and three signboard are affixed on the front side read as (1) Jumna Lodge Masonic Fraternity, Free Mason Hall, Qudsia Bagh, (2) Masonic Charitable Poly Clinic/Jamuna Lodge Charitable Society (Regd.) and (3) Masonic Club (Regd.). As per this report, Sh. L. D. Ganotra noted that "from the above, it is clear that Jamuna Lodge is part and parcel of Masonic Fraternity, Masonic Club and perhaps that is why the word 'Masonic' is used by Jamuna Lodge everywhere".
Now I would like to reproduce again para 8 of reply of respondent no.1 and 2 i.e L&DO in this appeal as under :
"That the Masonic Club was allotted an area of 1.476 acres and the eviction order has been passed for the same are (as shown in the Site plan) and all averments contrary to it are false and mischievous. The break up of the said area allotted to Masonic Club is as under : In 1946 allotment was made for 0.159 acres In 1947 allotment was made for 0.707 acres In 1977 allotment was made for 0.610 acres 1.476 acres PPA No. 02/2013 Page 29 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 Now it is to be seen as to on what basis L&DO department is saying that they had alloted 3 pieces of land of Masonic Club. In the trial court record, the L&DO department/Union of India has filed a few documents in support of its claim. One is letter dated 15.3.1969 written by Sh.G.D.Bahari,an officer of MCD, to the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration in which it was stated a building 2 tennis courts in this garden in Khasra No. 636 of Mauza Civil Station are in possession of Masonic Club. This letter refers to its record vide which it transpires that Masonic Hall belonged to Government and was made over to the masonic fraternity for its use as a lodge vide letter no. 2007 dated 12.10.1898 from Revenue Secretary Government Punjab to the Commissioner Delhi Division subject to the conditions that the free masons will vacate, if the place is at any time required for a public purpose. The other conditions were also reproduced in it. I may point that these terms and conditions are also being relied upon by respondent no.3, which would be fully dealt by me. The noting of Sh. T. C. Hingorani, the Deputy Land & Development Officer were also filed in which these terms and conditions were written but it appears that there was confusion on administrative PPA No. 02/2013 Page 30 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 side due to the word masonic fraternity used in the letter no. 2007 dated 12.10.1898 and Masonic Club.
The L&DO department as well as the State Officer erred in differentiating between the two. The L&DO department had filed before the trial court copy of letter dated 19.5.1970 written to the Secretary Masonic Club with the subject "temporary allotment of this tennis courts in Qudsia Garden with additional land". This letter itself shows that Masonic Club was allotted 2 strips of land more specifically shown in red colour in site plan.
Court Visit Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 & 2 i.e. L&DO had been arguing that appellant and respondent no.3 are in collusion with each other and that it is Masonic Club itself, which is in possession of the building in 0.159 acres. To remove all confusions, I visited Qudsia Garden on 17.7.2015 at 5:15 pm with notice to all the parties. Ld. Counsels for appellant and respondent no.3 and two officials of L&DO department namely Sh. Gopal Rastogi, the building officer and Sh. Biri Singh Surveyor from L&DO department (i.e. respondent no.1) were also present. Some members of the free masons/Jamna Hall and Masonic Club had also reached. I found that the PPA No. 02/2013 Page 31 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 building in the strip of land measuring 0.159 acres is mainly occupied by respondent no.3. However, there is a board Jamna Lodge Charitable Society (Regd.) where a clinic is being run by this society in one portion of the building. It was informed by Ld. Counsel for respondent 3 that whereas the free masons, in occupation of the building, are not a registered society but the Jumna Lodge Charitable Society (Regd.) is a registered society, which is running the clinic and that the said society in fact being run by the free masons. In other words, the building is in possession of free masons and Jamna Lodge Charitable Society (R). However, Masonic Club is not in possession of this building.
I have already reproduced the contents of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by respondent no.3. In this application, it was alleged by Jamuna Lodge that vide a letter dated 1.9.1918 the Government of Punjab had made over the Jamuna Lodge for use to the fraternity of freemasons. It was submitted in the application that Masonic Club made a request to Jamuna Lodge requesting them to use a portion of the Jumuna Hall, which was granted by the applicant. It is stated that Masonic Club subsequently applied to Notified Area Committee for PPA No. 02/2013 Page 32 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 allotment of tennis courts and accordingly this tennis courts were allotted to the appellant i.e. club. It is further stated in the application that in the year 1947 the Notified Area Committee granted additional strips of land to Jamuna Lodge. It is submitted that Estate officer only issued notices to Masonic Club in which the property allotted to Jamuna Lodge was also included and after hearing the Masonic Club,the impugned eviction order was passed, not only in respect of tennis courts but also in respect of the Jamuna Lodge. It was argued that it appeared that there was confusion on part of the Government of India due to which it considered that all the three pieces of land were alloted to Masonic Club, whereas, it is argued that only two pieces of land were given to Masonic Club. It is submitted that Jamuna Lodge had even filed a suit against Masonic Club in which Masonic Club was held to be licensee of the property whereas Jamuna Lodge was held to be the owner of the property. Therefore, it was prayed that Jamuna Lodge made a necessary party. This request was acceded to by my Ld. Predecessor and vide a detailed order dated 10.9.2005, Jamuna Lodge was arrayed as respondent no.3 through its Secretary. Respondent no.3 has placed on PPA No. 02/2013 Page 33 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 judicial file the relevant record, which shows that Khasra No. 636 is a Government land in possession of notified area committee. It also mentions the buildings standing in this land, which includes "Masonic Hall", which belonged to Government and was made over to Masonic fraternity for use as a lodge vide letter no. 2007 dated 12.10.1898 from Revenue Secretary to Government, Punjab to the Commissioner and Superintendent, Delhi Division subject to following conditions :
1. That freemasons will vacate if the possession is at any time required for public purposes.
2. That no compensation will be given by the Committee or Government, if vacation is necessary.
3. That no buildings or building material will be removed by the freemasons if they are required to vacate.
4. The building is to be used only for the purpose for which it is sanctioned and that under no circumstances, it will be allowed to be used for a dwelling use either temporary or permanently.
Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has brought on record the abstracts from the minutes of proceedings of Lodge Jamuna No. 1394 PC held by Lodge dated September 6, 1898, in which it was requested that Jamuna Lodge was PPA No. 02/2013 Page 34 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 allotted to the freemasons. Although these are not the original records but it is pertinent to note that the noting of Sh. T. C. Hingorani, Deputy Land & Development Officer available on the trial court record lends credence to the aforesaid documents. These documents show that Masonic Hall is a Government property and freemasons were allowed to use this premises by the Government for use of its activities and the nature of this grant is no more than that of a license. This also shows that the hall was given to freemasons and not to Masonic Club. Therefore, the notice issued to Masonic Club will be applicable only on two strips, which have been shown in red colour in the site plan filed by respondent no.3. It appeared that since Masonic Club had started using the premises with the permission of freemasons, the Estate Officer issued notice only to Masonic Club and not to the freemasons, who are using the Jumuna Lodge.
In nutshell, I hold that all the three pieces of land either held by appellant i.e. Masonic Club or held by Freemasons under the nomenclature of Jamuna Hall are public premises and are the properties of Land & Development Office i.e. respondent no.3, which is a department of Govt. of India. I further hold that all the PPA No. 02/2013 Page 35 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 three pieces of land (and structures/building over the same) were subject matter of the proceedings before the Estate Officer.
On the basis of the trial court record and the pleadings before this court as well as on the basis of my observation by visiting these properties, I hold that the building as shown in blue colour in the site plan filed by the respondent no.3 measuring 0.159 acres is mainly in possession of Freemasons, which is an unregistered society, who have allowed one part of this building to be used by "Jamuna Lodge Charitable Society (Regd.)", which is running a Clinic therefrom. The two pieces of land shown in the site plan in red colour under the nomenclature of 'Marriage Pandal' and 'Tennis Court' were in possession of the Masonic Club i.e. the appellant at the time of passing of the impugned order, though at the time of inspection by me, I found that there was no Marriage Pandal existing at the place and it is only a grassy lawn to which there was no sign of occupation by Masonic Club.
17. Issues In view of my aforesaid findings, I would like to decide the issues framed by this court vide ordersheet dated 01.10.2007. I may point out that the present matter has a PPA No. 02/2013 Page 36 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 chequered history and on every point the parties have preferred to file petitions, revisions, appeals in higher courts. Vide an order dated 21.07.2003, Hon'ble High Court had directed that all the issues particularly the issue as to whether the petitioner is the owner of the premises in question at all and other related questions have to be decided on facts before Ld. ADJ. In compliance of this order, my Ld. Predecessor framed issues. It is pertinent to note that appellant filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to lead evidence on the issues so framed by this court. My Ld. Predecessor dismissed this request vide ordersheet dated 19.10.2012 on the ground that parties cannot use the appellate court as a forum to collect evidence on behalf of the respective parties. Appellant challenged the said order by filing CM(M) No. 1304/2012 but same was dismissed in default on 02.12.2014. Therefore, the trial court order dated 19.10.2012 became final. Hence, this court is to decide the issues framed by this court on the basis of the trial court record and the pleadings and documents cited before this court. I reproduce the issues which were framed by this court as under :
a. What is the status of the respondent no.3 i.e. Jamuna Lodge in respect of the property in question? OPD PPA No. 02/2013 Page 37 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 b. What is the status of the respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. Land and Development Office in respect of the property in question? OPD c. Whether the respondents no. 1 & 2 are entitled to claim any damages and the legal basis thereof? OPD d. If the answer to the issue (c) is in favour of the respondents no.1 & 2 then who is liable to pay the said damages? OPD e. Whether the alleged formula for calculations of damages is legal, fair and justified? OPD At the request of Ld. Counsel respondent no. 3 following issues were also framed :
"Whether in impugned order of Ld. Estate Officer, the area of building of the club is also included?"
"Whether Jamuna Lodge has any locus standi in this matter of appeal?"
18. Whether the matter should be remanded back to the Estate Officer for recording evidence on the aforesaid issues and to give fresh findings?
Ld. counsel for appellant has argued that the matter may be remanded back to the Estate Officer for recording of evidence on the aforesaid points. I find no substance in this prayer. The appellant was given many opportunities by the Estate Officer to produce evidence to show his entitlement over the premises in question. Even during these appeals, appellant has failed to file any document in PPA No. 02/2013 Page 38 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 his support. Therefore, I decline this request of appellant and I proceed to decide these issues as under:
First I will take up issue no.(a) & another issue on behalf of respondent no.1 & 2 i.e. L&DO, which are reproduced as under:
19. "What is the status of the respondent no.3 i.e. Jamuna Lodge in respect of the property in question?"
"Whether Jamuna Lodge has any locus standi in this appeal?"
I have already discussed that it is the case of respondent no.3 itself that they were allotted the premises/building shown in blue colour in the site plan by Govt., as per the terms & conditions of allotment which I have already reproduced. Perusal of these terms and conditions show that their status is no more than that of a licensee of respondent No.1. Once they are licensee, they have a locus standi to be a party in this appeal to stake their claim. Both these issues are decided accordingly.
20. "Whether in impugned order of Ld. Estate Officer, the area of building of the club is also included?"
I may point out that there is discrepancy in this issue. Instead of Club(i.e. Appellant) it should be read "respondent no.3". A perusal of the impugned order of the Estate Officer, which has been reproduced by me in earlier PPA No. 02/2013 Page 39 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 part of the judgment, would show that Estate Officer has included this building also in his order. However, I have already held that the society of Freemasons is in occupation of this building. Since the appellant and respondent no.3 are two different organizations and no notice has been given to the Freemason Society occupying this building, I hold that this building which is shown in blue colour in the site plan cannot be said to be under the possession of appellant i.e. Masonic Club. I may point out that no notice has been given to Freemasons who are the actual occupants and users of Jamna Hall. The issue is decided accordingly.
21. "What is the status of the respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. Land and Development Office in respect of the property in question? OPD" (Issue 'b') Appellant himself has admitted that he has been allottee of this land by the Notified Area Committee. I have already discussed that this land is government land and MCD has only taken over the functions of Notified Area Committee only in respect of the functions under Section 99, 286, 504, 511 & 516 of DMC Act. Functions of MCD are only limited to that extent. But it cannot be said that MCD has become the owner of the said property. I, PPA No. 02/2013 Page 40 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 therefore, hold that Union of India through respondent no. 1 are the owners of all the three pieces of land in question.
22. "Whether the respondents no. 1 & 2 are entitled to claim any damages and the legal basis thereof? OPD (Issue 'c') It is not in dispute that the appellant is not paying the license fee and despite expiry of license, they are over staying on two pieces of land more specifically mentioned in the site plan as Marriage Pandal and Six Tennis Courts. Therefore, respondents no.1 is definitely entitled to claim the damages. Respondent no.2, the Estate Officer is duly empowered to impose damages upon appellant in respect of these two strips of lands under Section 7 of The P. P. Act 1971.
23. "If the answer to the issue (c) is in favour of the respondents no.1 & 2 then who is liable to pay the said damages? OPD (Issue 'd') I have already discussed that Masonic Club is having possession of two strips of land shown in red colour and marked as Marriage Pandal and six Tennis Courts. Therefore, appellant is liable to pay the damages only respect of these two strips lands.
PPA No. 02/2013 Page 41 / 44Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015
24. "Whether the alleged formula for calculations of damages is legal, fair and justified? OPD" (Issue 'e') This issue will be decided in PPA No. 01/2013.
25. In view of aforesaid findings, I accept the objection of respondent no.3 and hold that the eviction order issued against the Masonic Club i.e. the appellant would be operative in respect of the two pieces of land, which have been shown in the site plan as Marriage Pandal and tennis courts. Since, no notice of eviction has been given to respondent no. 3, society of freemasons and Jumna Lodge Charitable Society by the Estate Officer for vacating the building called as Masonic Hall or Jamuna Hall, the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the same would be valid only in respect of the two strips of land, which are in occupation of the appellant i.e. Masonic Club and which have been described as Marriage Pandal and Tennis Courts in the site plan filed before the Estate Officer by respondent no.1.
26. L&DO, however, would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against respondent no.3, fraternity of freemasons or Jumna Lodge Charitable Society (Regd.) in PPA No. 02/2013 Page 42 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 respect of the aforesaid building, if it wants to evict them from the said Masonic Hall.
27. I would also like to draw the attention of respondent no.1 as well as the Estate Officer to the Delhi Urban Heritage Foundation Regulations 1999 framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 57 of Delhi Development Act 1957, by which a Foundation has been constituted under the Chairmanship of Lt. Governor of Delhi with a view to promote conservation of Civic and Urban Heritage, which includes Architecturally significant works and Historical Landmarks. On my visit, as well as from the documents available on record, I am of the opinion that Masonic Hall is a building of historical importance and is a building, which is more than 100 years old. It is situated in Qudsia Garden, where another building is being managed by Archaeological Survey of India. Such buildings have history and must be preserved. L&DO and Estate Officer may bring this fact to the notice of Delhi Urban Heritable Foundation.
28. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The impugned order is partly set aside only to the extent of its PPA No. 02/2013 Page 43 / 44 Masonic Club Vs. Land & Development Office & Ors. Judgment dated 21.07.2015 applicability on Masonic Hall/Jumna Hall. Rest of the order is upheld. Copy of judgement along with trial court record be returned to the Estate Officer. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court. (VINOD KUMAR) Dated : 21.07.2015. Additional District Judge13 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
PPA No. 02/2013 Page 44 / 44