Delhi District Court
Nanak Chand vs Estate Officer on 4 July, 2014
Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey
Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GORAKH NATH PANDEY
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 (NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PPA No. 52/14
Case I.D. Number : 02402C0138042014
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Nanak Chand,
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Bhan,
R/o N51, Welcome,
Delhi110053.
2. Delhi Peasant Cooperative
Multipurpose Society Ltd.,
5150, Ballimaran, Delhi110006
Through its Secretary Mr. Baljeet Singh .......Appellants
VERSUS
Estate Officer,
Delhi Development Authority
INA, Vikas Sadan
New Delhi ........Respondent
Date of Institution of Appeal:08.05.2014
Date of Arguments :04.07.2014
Date of Judgment/Order :04.07.2014
Decision :Appeal Dismissed
PPA No. 52/14
Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 1 of 19
Sh. Gorakh Nath 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 19.03.2014 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) 2011/724/Damage/B.E./35/766 whereby the proceedings initiated by Ld. Estate Officer under the provisions of 4 (1) of the Act was concluded and the appellant (original respondent No. 1) and respondent No. 2 M/s Delhi Peasant Cooperative Multi Purpose Society Ltd. ( original respondent No. 2) were directed to vacate the land measuring 30 bigha out of khasra No. 265/107 min situated in the Revenue Estate of Bela Delhi under the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the said Act.
The appellant as well as M/s Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multi Purpose Society ( hereinafter called as the said society) were the respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively before the Ld. Estate Officer. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.03.2014 passed by Ld. Estate OfficerII, the instant appeal is preferred by the respondent No. 1/appellant only and no appeal has been preferred by the respondent No. 2.
2. The brief and relevant facts for filing the appeal is that the Estate OfficerII issued a notice Under Section 4 of the said Act to the appellant/respondent No. 1 stating to be in illegal/unauthorized occupation of PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 2 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. the land measuring 30 bigha out of khasra No. 265/107 min situated in the Revenue Estate of Bela Delhi and asked them to show cause as to why the eviction order be not passed against him.
3. As mentioned 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 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 PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 3 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. 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 19.03.2014 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.
4. The impugned order dated 19.03.2014 is challenged by way of the present appeal mainly on the grounds that (I) The lease rent was received by the DDA even after the alleged termination of lease and therefore the lease cannot be considered to be terminated.
(II) Non determination/termination of the lease/tenancy of the society or the appellant, and (III) The resolution 6 of 1973 passed by the DDA is not considered by the Estate Officer while passing the impugned order.
(IV) The impugned order has been passed without considering the order dated 19.04.2006 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in writ petition No. 14260/04 PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 4 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. whereby the appellant was given liberty to raise all defences and contentions and the Estate Officer did not consider the same.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the lease of the society has not been determined so far and the Ld. Estate Officer has not considered and appreciated the statement made by Ld. Counsel for the DDA in RFA No. 250/1971 and wrongly reached to the conclusion that DDA has terminated the lease of the society vide letter dated 31.07.1967. It is further argued that the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 19.04.2006 in writ petition No. 14260/04 was not considered while passing the impugned order. He submitted that vide letter dated 17.01.1974, 13.12.77 the DDA asked the society to pay the lease rent. Further, letter dated 21.06.1983 was issued by the DDA regarding extension of the lease. He read letter dated 04.11.97 regarding the renewal of the lease in support of contentions. 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.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent/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. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 5 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath 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.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on the records.
8. 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.
9. 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 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 PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 6 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. 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 specified in the notice alongwith the evidence which they PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 7 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. 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 eviction [ on or before, the date specified in the said order or PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 8 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. 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.
10. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the rent has been paid by the appellant regularly even after the alleged termination of lease and the same was received by the DDA and therefore the appellant cannot be held to be in unauthorized occupation of the land in question. He further argued that the affect of payment after termination of the lease is that the appellant cannot be considered as unauthorized occupant for being evicted of the land in question. The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment reported as AIR 1972 SC 819 titled Bhawan Ji Lakhamshi & Ors. Vs. Himat Lal Jamna Das Dani & Ors. in support of his contentions.
11. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the appellant does not appear to have substance. There is no documentary evidence regarding the allotment by the authority in favour of the appellant for payment of lease rent nor the appellant has placed any document regarding his membership of the society. The payment of rent is also disputed by the society as well as the respondent/DDA. The deposit of any money after the expiry of the lease by PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 9 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. the society or the appellant without any demand by the DDA did not create any right in their favour. It appears that Ld. Counsel for the appellant misconstrued the demands made by the DDA regarding the arrears of land as the payment of rent. As held in Bhawan Ji ( supra), mere acceptance of amounts equivalent to rent by a land lord from a tenant in possession after the lease has been determined, by efflux of time or by notice to quit, cannot be regarded as evidence of new agreement of tenancy. As held 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. The lease was never extended and therefore the payment of alleged rent, if any by the appellant is of no help.
12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the lease of the society has not been terminated till date. As regards the issue of termination of lease, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant 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 PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 10 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. 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. 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 Cooperative 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. PPA No. 52/14
Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 11 of 19
Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey
Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. I have gone through these documents and failed to find myself in consonance with the arguments by Ld. Counsel for the appellant. By virtue of these documents it is observed that the lease if any in favour of the society had come to an end and the case regarding the renewal of the same was under consideration. It appears that on the one hand the appellant is relying on letter dated 04.11.1987 for stay of the eviction proceedings though the said letter itself talks regarding the renewal of the lease. The factum regarding consideration of renewal of lease in favour of the society could only arise after the same has been terminated or determined. These documents do not support the claim and contention of the appellant. Contrary to the stand of the appellant, this court finds itself in consonance with the finding of the Estate Officer that the lease was never extended after 1966.
13. 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 reason whatsoever".
PPA No. 52/14
Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 12 of 19
Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey
Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
14. 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.
15. 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 required to hand over the possession of the land PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 13 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
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.
16. 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. 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.
17. 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 PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 14 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. 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.
18. As contended by the appellant, he was a member of the society. 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 as a member of the society to whom the land in question was ever leased by the Delhi Improvement Trust in the year 1949. 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 land in question and the occupation of the appellant is not concerned with the terms of the PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 15 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
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.
19. 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.
20. 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;
(c) existing actual cultivators be permitted to cultivate up to PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 16 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. 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.
21. 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 had in fact protected the lands from encroachment and the appellant thus PPA No. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 17 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. 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.)"
22. 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. 52/14 Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 18 of 19 Sh. Gorakh Nath 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.
23. 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.
24. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Estate Officer concerned.
25. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on this 4th day of July, 2014 Gorakh Nath Pandey Addl. District Judge02 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
PPA No. 52/14
Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 19 of 19
Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey
Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts Delhi. PPA No. 52/14
Nanak Chand & Anr. Vs. Estate Officer page 20 of 19