Delhi District Court
Unknown vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 14 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PPA-24/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-008893-2016
In re:
Chattar Singh & Ors.
(deceased through legal heirs)
1. Nahar Singh
S/o Late Sh. Chattar Singh
R/o WZ-45b, Rattan Parka,
New Delhi-110015
2. Ravinder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Chattar Singh Tanwar
R/o WZ 45-E, Rattan Park
Basai Darapur, New Delhi-110015
3. Brahm Prakash Tanwar
S/o Late Sh Chattar Singh
R/o C-39, Mansarover Garden
New Delhi-110015
(All legal heirs of late Sh. Chattar Singh)
4. Sh. Rajender
R/o Late Sh. Rattan Singh
R/o C-33, Mansarover Garden,
New Delhi
5. Sh. Raj Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Rattan Singh
R/o C-35, Mansarover Garden,
New Delhi.
PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 1 of 15
6. Sh. Vijay Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Rattan Singh Tanwar
R/o C-36, Mansarover Garden,
New Delhi -110015
7. Sh. Satish Tanwar
S/o Late Sh. Rattan Singh Tanwar
R/o C-55, Mansarover Garden,
New Delhi -110015
(All Legal heirs of late Sh. Rattan Singh)
8. (a) Smt. Sunita Tanwar
W/o Late Sh. Rajbir Singh
R/o WZ-507, Basai Darapur
West Delhi, Delhi-110015
8. (b) Sh. Nitin Tanwar
S/o Late Sh. Rajbir Singh
R/o WZ-507, Basai Darapur
West Delhi, Delhi-110015
8. (c) Ms. Ashima Hooda
D/o Late Sh. Rajbir Singh
R/o WZ-507, Basai Darapur
West Delhi, Delhi-110015
(all legal heirs of appellant No.8 Sh. Rajbir Singh)
9. Smt. Kusum Tanwar
W/o Late Sh. Subhash Tanwar
R/o WZ-507, Ground Floor,
Basai Darapur, New Delhi
10.Ashish Tanwar
S/o Late Sh. Subhash Tanwar
R/o WZ-507, Ground Floor,
Basai Darapur, New Delhi
11.Jyoti Tanwar
D/o Late Sh. Subhash Tanwar
R/o WZ-507, Ground Floor,
Basai Darapur, New Delhi
PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 2 of 15
12.Manisha Tanwar
D/o Late Sh. Subhash Tanwar
R/o WZ-507, Ground Floor,
Basai Darapur, New Delhi
13.Ruchika Tanwar
D/o Late Sh. Subhash Tanwar
R/o WZ-507, Ground Floor,
Basai Darapur, New Delhi
14.Smt. Kamlesh
D/o Late Sh. Chottey Lal
R/o WZ-507, Ground Floor,
Basai Darapur, New Delhi
(All Legal Heirs of Late Sh. Chottey Lal)
15.Smt. Ram Nandi
Wife of Late Sh. Ram Dass
16.Sh. Surender Tanwar
S/o Late Sh. Ram Dass Tanwar
17.Sh. Balram Tanwar
S/o Late Sh. Ram Dass Tanwar
18.Sh. Jagbir Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ram Dass Tanwar
All r/o WZ-1440-A, Basai Darapur,
New Delhi-110016
19. Smt. Kusum
D/o Late Sh. Ram Dass Tanwar
R/o SA-602, Beronet B-2, Akruli Road
Mumbai Upanagar, Tehsil-Borivali
Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
(Legal heirs of late Sh. Ram Dass) ....... Appellants
Versus
1. North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 3 of 15
Delhi-110 006
Through its Commissioner
2. Estate Officer
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
9th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre
Minto Road, New Delhi. ...... Respondents
Date of filing of appeal : 18.11.2016
Date of hearing arguments : 02.09.2021
Date of judgment : 14.09.2021
Appearances:
Sh. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
1. This order shall decide an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred as 'PP Act') moved on behalf of the appellants/petitioners assailing the order dated 22.06.2016 passed by the respondent no.2/Estate Officer, North Delhi, Municipal Corporation in PPA case no. 682 of 2014.
2. This case has a long history of litigation between the parties, and briefly stated the case of the appellants is that they are the co-owners of the land measuring 22 bighas 19 biswas out of land falling in Khasra nos. 1364, 1365, 1366, 1367 and 1370, Village Basai Dara Pur, Delhi, since re-named as Mansarover Garden, New Delhi. It is stated by the appellants that they are the legal heirs of late Sh. Chottey Lal, late Sh. Rattan Singh, late Sh. Chattar Singh and late Sh. Ram Dass and their such predecessors-in-interest had sold total area of land PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 4 of 15 measuring 124.90 acres to M/s Bharat Builders & Colonizers vide four sale deeds of different dates, who made the layout plan of Mansarover Garden as per the approval of the Delhi Development Provisional Authority in the year 1956-57. It is thus claimed that total area of land measuring 177 bighas and 17 biswas was sold and possession handed over to the said private colonizer but the area of 22 bigas 19 biswas in the aforesaid khasra were never sold, over which the predecessors-in- interest and later the appellants had their possession and control.
3. The affect was that there were several unacquired pockets in the lay out plan and the Standing Committee of the Delhi Development Provisional Authority vide Resolution no. 60 recorded such facts of un-acquired pockets in the colony of Mansarover Garden and inter alia providing that the development or construction in the said pockets in future would have to conform to the patterns of planning land laid out for the Community Centre.
4. It appears that when in December, 1978 the MCD attempted to demolish structures raised on khasra no. 1367 and raise construction of the Community Centre in one of the so called unacquired pockets as per the appellants, they instituted a Suit no. 577/78 titled as Chattar Singh Vs. MCD, which was decreed in their favour by the Court of Ms Sunita Jain, the then ld Civil Judge, Delhi vide Judgment dated 05.11.1981, wherein inter alia vide Issue no. 4 it was decided that in so far as land measuring 22 bigas and 19 biswas in the aforesaid khasras, the same had not been sold to the private colonizer, and thus the defendant corporation had no right over the land PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 5 of 15 and it was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. In making such decision, the Court relied upon the Jama Bandi for the year 1960-61. It is admitted fact that no appeal was filed by the respondent no.1/MCD against the said Judgment but the appellants were served with show cause notice dated 28.02.1991 No. EO/PP/91/2503 under sub-section (1) and Clause (B) (II) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 by the Estate Officer.
5. In the said proceedings, the parties examined several witnesses and the then Estate Officer vide order dated 26.07.1993 passed an order under Section 4, 5 & 5B of the PP Act, wherein operative observations read as under:-
"ORDER UNDER SECTIONS 4,5,7, 5B OF THE PUBLIC PREMISES(EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 Whereas I, the undersigned am satisfied for the reasons recorded below that Shri Chattar Singh is in unauthorized occupation of the Public Premises specified in the schedule below:
i) The petition is not clear in respect of para No.2, it is mentioned that the respondent had unauthorisedly occupied same land comprised in Khasra no. 1367 and raised unlawful construction thereupon.
ii) It is also not clear that how much area is in unauthorized occupation.
iii) I have gone through the evidences produced by the petitioner. The petitioner's his own witness i.e. Shri Allah Mehar has stated that he is unable to tell the exact khasra number and suggested that only the Revenue Department of Delhi Administration can verify the exact khasra numbers.
iv) Shri Ashok Khanna, Jr. Town Planner of M.C.D.'s town planning Department in his statement has stated that PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 6 of 15 previously Community Centre sites were shown in green belt after passing of the Zonal Plan of the area. The Community Centre of Mansarover Garden has been re-located across the road.
In view of the above fact, I am of the opinion that the petitions filed by the petitioner be remanded back to the AC (Lands & Estate) Development to get he land clarified from the Revenue Department of Delhi Administration to ascertain the actual position of the land in question.
Schedule Khasra No. 1364, 1365, 1366, 1367 and 1370 Basai Darapur, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi.
DT. 26.03.1993 ESTATE OFFICER" [
6. The appellant then filed an appeal on 05.08.1993 u/s 9 of the PP Act before the then District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, which appeal was adjourned sine die vide order dated 04.05.2005 with liberty to the parties to revive the proceedings as and when a decision is made by the concerned Assistant Commissioner (Land & Estate) from the Revenue Department of the Delhi Administration with regard to the actual position of the land in question.
7. To cut the long story short, the proceedings were continued before the concerned authority but in the meanwhile, respondent no.1 allegedly threatened to take over the land of the appellant per force, hence the appellants filed Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) 6115/1998 titled as Chattar Singh & others Vs. MCD before the High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge vide order dated 17.05.2007 holding that the judgment & decree dated 05.11.1981 was a result of fraud and the MCD has been able to prove through the lay out plan that the land in question belonged to them; and aggrieved thereof, the appellants filed LPA no. 1302/2007, which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Judges in the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi vide PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 7 of 15 order dated 15.04.2014. It would be expedient to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the operative Judgment which goes as under
after noting the aforesaid background of the matter:
"12. The resolution records that the colonizers have not purchased the entire land forming part of the colony and thus the unacquired pockets were shown in the plan. The approval granted was to such lands which were acquired by the colonizers under the sale-deeds.
13. The learned Single Judge has overlooked the aforesaid aspects.
14. The position which would thus emerge would be that approval sought covering 124.9 acres lands was restricted to only such lands which were under the ownership of colonizers. Which parts were approved for colonization and which were not were indicated in the lay-out plan.
15. The said lay-out plan has not seen the light of the day. Unless one sees the lay-out plan and then super imposes the same on the revenue map it would just not be possible for anyone to determine where is the site of the community centre. It has to be kept in mind that out of 10 bigha and 9 biswa land comprised in khasra No.1364, 5 bigha was admittedly owned by the colonizers. Similarly out of 8 bigha and 9 biswa land comprised in khasra No.1365, 6 bigha was owned by the colonizer. The sale-deeds do not refer to the lands comprised in khasra No.1367. The entire land comprised in khasra No.1369 was owned by the colonizers. No land comprised in khasra No.1370 was owned by the colonizer.
16. Whether or not the colonizer purchased the remaining land is not forthcoming from the pleadings of the parties. Whether or not the colony Mansarover Garden finally came up on the entire 124.90 acres land or not is not forthcoming from the pleadings of the parties. For if finally, seven hundred and sixty four residential plots, two shopping centres, one cinema, one High School, two primary schools and one dispensary came up on the lands it would mean that a presumption could be raised that the colonizer acquired title to the entire lands. If the colony which finally came up is less than what was proposed, it would obviously mean that the colonizer did not acquire title to the entire land.
17. Under the circumstances we dispose of the appeal setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 8 of 15 Single Judge. The writ petition filed by the appellants is disposed of remanding the matter to the Estate Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (which would mean now the North Delhi Municipal Corporation). At the remanded stage the Estate Officer would give an opportunity to the appellants as also the Corporation to lead further evidence keeping in view the present order. Lest there be any dispute of service, the Estate Officer would intimate the date of hearing to the appellants by sending a notice by Regd. A.D.Post at the address of appellant's counsel Sh. R.P.Sharma, Advocate 1E/3, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
18. No costs." {the bold portion emphasized}
8. Consequent to the aforesaid order dated 15.04.2014, the matter got remanded back to the Estate Officer and the impugned order dated 22.06.2016 came to be passed. In order to appreciate the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer/respondent no. 2, it would be expedient to reproduce its relevant portion that are as follows :
"Considering the aforesaid position borne from the record, it appears that the layout plan of Mansarover Garden was sanctioned by the Delhi Development Authority in the year 1956-57. In the layout plan, the disputed site was reserved for public utility services, the possession whereof was handedover by the Colonizer company M/s Bharat Builders & Colonizer on 02.08.1973 for the use and development of the site earmarked in the layout plan falling in Khasra No. 1364 (area 6.9 Bigha), 1365 (area 8.9 Bigha), 1366 (area 6.15 Bigha), 1367 (area 7.14 Bigha) and 1370 (area 5.9 Bigha). The total area measuring 8.8 Acres vest in MCD by virtue of Standing Committee Resolution No. 1097 dated 14.03.1975.
I have seen the documents exhibited by the witnesses of both the parties and after due consideration, it is concluded that ownership of the disputed land which have been shown as CF sites in the layout plan of Mansarover Garden vests with the MCD. During the defense evidence, Sh. Rajbir Singh in his examination in chief, has stated that the total area of the land in Khasra No. 1364, 1365, 1367 and 1370 of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi is 38.16 Biswas and co-sharer of the land Sh. Chattar Singh, Rattan Singh, Chotte Lal, Ram Das and Shiv Charan sold some of PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 9 of 15 the land to the M/s Bharat Builders and Colonizer. Sh. Chatta Singh also stated that all the Co-owners have sold the land to the M/s Bharat Builder & Colonizer. Sh. Bhawar Singh, Halka Patwari of village Basai Darapur, defence witness during his cross-examination stated that he cannot say as to whether Sh. Chattar Singh has sold or not the whole land measuring 38.16 Bigha of Khasra No. 1364, 1365, 1367 and 1370 of Basai Darapur, New Delhi to the Bharat Builders and Colonizer.
Without entering into this controversy, in the light of the Supreme Court Judgment cited as 2007(67)/ALR 789 titled as "Suraj Bhan and Ors Vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors". I find force in the arguments of the Counsel for the MCD that the entries in the revenue records or Jamabandi has only fiscal value i.e. payment of Land Revenue and no owner-ship is conferred on the basis of such entries. He has further argued that the title of property can only be decided by the Civil Court. It is also argued for the Counsel of the MCD that the respondents have no case against the MCD because the Corporation has got the vesting right while sanctioning the layout plan by virtue of Standing Committee Resolution and in case, the respondents have any grievance in respect of the land in question, it is open for the respondents to agitate their grievance against M/s Bharat Builders and Colonizers who has handed over the land in question to the Corporation on 02.0-8.19787 as a precondition to the sanctioning of the layout plan of Mansarover Garden Colony. He has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case bearing RSA No. 157/2012 titled "Kabool Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi".
Whereas I, the undersigned after considering the matter in the light of order dated 15.04.2014, passed in LPA No. 1302/2007 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observe that no orders of either eviction or restoration can be passed in the light of the order dated 26.07.1993 passed by the Estate Officer vide No. EO/PP/93/595 dated 26.07.1993 and the aggrieved parties may relegate their grievances before the Civil Court impleading M/s Bharat Builders and Colonizers as a party in accordance with law. The reference is answered accordingly".
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also perused the relevant record including the original record of the Estate PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 10 of 15 Officer and the record of the proceedings conducted therein leading to the impugned order.
DECISION IN APPEAL:
10. At the very outset, the impugned order dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Estate Officer/ respondent No.2 is shocking, unconscionable and in blatant disregard to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Judges in the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in LPA 1302/2007 dated April 15, 2014. A bare perusal of the order dated 15.04.2014 would show that the admitted position by the MCD in the short counter-affidavit was that private colonizer, namely M/s. Bharat Builders and Colonizers had got approved a layout plan of the colony in question in the year 1956-57 with regard to 6 bigha and 9 biswa land comprised in khasra No. 1364; 8 bigha and 9 biswa land comprised in khasra No. 1365; 6 bigha and 15 biswa land comprised in 1366; 7 bigha and 14 biswa land comprised in khasra No. 1367 and 5 bigha and 9 biwsa land comprised in khasra No. 1370, that were proposed to be available for public utility services. It is also pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court in the aforesaid LPA had given consideration to four sale deed executed by the erstwhile owners / predecessors-in-interest of the present appellants first dated 2210.1969 and two sale deeds each dated 19.08.1970 and 4 th one dated 07.09.1970.
11. It is significant to note that on a meticulous perusal thereof, it was observed that total land comprised in khasra No. 1364 was 10 bigha and 9 biswa, out of which only 5 bigha was sold; and that ony 6 PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 11 of 15 bigha of land in khasra No 1365 was sold out of 8 bigha and 9 biswa land and likewise only 2 bigha of land was sold comprised in khasra No. 1364 out of 4 bigha and 5 biswa. In such a scenario it was observed that neither the claims of the appellants nor that of the MCD was fully made out with regard to their assertions to the title of the remaining part of the land that was not sold. So it is not understood from where the Estate Officer/respondent no. 2 deciphered that the disputed area marked as 'CF' in the layout plan of Mansarover Garden vests with MCD.
12. Sh. Ravinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for the appellants has rightly urged that the private colonizer had no authority to hand over any portion of the land in the aforesaid khasras over which it had not acquired any titled by virtue of the four sale deeds and he has rightly pointed out that the approval for regularization vide dissolution No. 60 dated 09.03.1957 was created with regard to gross area of 124.90 Acres that were acquired by the colonizers under the four sale deeds. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has rightly urged that the Estate Officer/ respondent No.2 failed to consider the demarcation report dated 29.03.1995 with regard to the aforesaid khasras besides the chronological history of the case of the MCD, which itself was in doubt as regards its title to the disputed portion of the land.
13. All said and done, the solution to the instant imbroglio was clearly crystalized by the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court vide paragraphs (15) & (16) of the order dated 15.04.2014 and it is shocking to observe that though the impugned order dated 22.06.2016 ostensibly PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 12 of 15 speaks about complying with the aforesaid directions by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in reality it has resulted in blatant disregard to such directions as no attempt was made by the Estate Officer/ respondent No.2 to proceed to record the evidence in terms of directions dated 15.04.2014.
14. In the background of the clear mandate that the parties should be allowed to lead evidence, the decision by the Estate Officer to reject the list of witnesses filed on behalf of the appellants vide order dated 02.05.2016, and not even bothering to consider the same on a review application filed by the appellants, amounted to flouting the directions of the High Court. Least that the Estate Officer/ respondent No.2 could have done was to prune the list of witnesses and allow summoning and examination of only that witnesses whose evidence prima facie appeared to be relevant to decided the matter in issue. The rejection of the list in toto without delving into the relevancy of the same was gross miscarriage of justice and not in consonance of fair-play in quasi judicial proceedings.
15. It appears that the Estate Officer / respondent No.2 was overawed by the fact that witnesses from 13 different departments were sought to be summoned. Sh. Ravinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for the appellants urged that he could have dropped few of the witnesses but their clients were never heard and their only endeavour was that the witnesses from the Revenue Department should be examined so as to lead evidence with regard to demarcation of the land in various khasras and actual position of the land at the disputed site.
PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 13 of 1516. The sum result of the aforesaid discussion is that the Estate Officer/ respondent No.2 did not proceed to record the evidence of the parties in terms of directions passed by the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 1302 dated 15.04.2014 and it is apparent that he elected to scuttle the evidence stage and embarked on deciding the matter based on the evidence that was available the whole the time on the record and such evidence presumably had already been considered by the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Delhi. The core of the matter is that North-DMC has to discharge initial burden of proving that the land in dispute 'belongs' to it in terms of Section 2 (e) (3) of the PP Act so as to hold it 'public premises' and thereby, allow the Estate Officer to pass appropriate orders as per law.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- and the matter is remanded back to the Estate Officer, North-DMC with directions to give an opportunity to the appellants as also the respondent No. 1/Corporation to file list of witnesses, afford opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order with regard to the relevancy of the witnesses to be examined by the parties; and then allow the appellants as also the Corporation to lead evidence in order to reflect or answer the issues, and thereafter pass a reasoned order in a time bound manner within three months from the day of appearance of the parties before the Estate Officer in terms of paragraphs (14) to (16) of the order dated 15.04.2014. The costs be recovered from the salary/benefits of the Estate Officer concerned by the Commissioner, NDMC and be deposited with the Bank Account of Delhi Bar Association bearing No. 10945761025 with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi within two months of this order.
PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 14 of 1518. The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Estate Officer on 05.10.2021. The record of the Estate Officer along-with copy of this order be sent back forthwith for information and necessary compliance. The instant appeal File be consigned to Record Room.
DHARMESH Digitally signed by
DHARMESH SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2021.09.15 11:56:17
+0530
Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA)
th
on 14 September, 2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge (West)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 15 of 15