Delhi District Court
Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram vs The Estate Officer on 18 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
& RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL )
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PPA No. 30161/2016
CNR No. DLCT01-001015-2011
Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram
Shiv Mandir, Parbandhak Samiti
A society registered under the
Societies Registration Act and
having its office at
Aram Bagh Lane,
New Delhi.
...........Appellant
Versus
1. Estate Officer
Land & Development Office
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi.
2. Union of India
through Secretary
Land & Development office
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi
............Respondents
Date of filing of appeal : 23.03.2011
Date of arguments : 17.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.10.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellate jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 impugning the order dated 09.03.2011 Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.18 PPA No. 30161/2016 Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram Vs Estate Officer & Anr Page 1 of 10 16:37:46 +0530 passed by the Estate Officer, Land & Development Office, (herein after referred as respondent) directing Shri Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram (hereinafter referred as respondent/ appellant) to make payment of Rs. 22,41,860/- as damages for the period 01.04.1985 to 31.03.2006 and to vacate the 27 Sq. Yards of land.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that an application was made to the Estate Officer that the respondent/appellant are in unauthorised occupation of Government land measuring 27 Sq. Yds. for running an Ashram, which is in fact being used as an office at I-point Junction, Mandir Marg and Panchkuian Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as premises in dispute) and also to pay damages amounting to Rs. 22,41,860/-.
3. Notice of application was sent to the respondent/appellant. The reply was filed admitting the fact that the premises in dispute is being used as office which is part of the Mandir but it was claimed that the amount claimed by the department is exorbitant.
4. The department filed its counter to the reply of the respondent/appellant stating that the occupation of the respondent is not authorised. The land where the structure is built was acquired by the Government on 21.12.1911 vide notification No. 775 for construction of new capital of India and is under the control of the Land and Development Office. It is alleged that the damages are calculated as per the rates approved by the Government.
5. The respondent/appellant filed the rejoinder to the counter reply reiterating its earlier stand.
6. The matter was thereafter listed for evidence of the department. The witness was examined but despite various Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL PPA No. 30161/2016 Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram Vs Estate Officer & Anr Page 2 of 10 BANSAL Date: 2025.10.18 16:37:55 +0530 opportunities the witness was not cross-examined by the respondent/appellant and opportunity was closed.
7. Ld. Estate officer after hearing the arguments passed the order dated 09.03.2011 which is under challenge in the present appeal.
8. Notice of appeal was sent to the department. Record of the Estate Officer was also called for.
9. During the pendency of appeal my learned predecessor also appointed a local commissioner vide order dated 19.01.2019 to visit the premises in dispute and check the exact location of the same and measure the distance of the premises in dispute from the temple and to check the usage of the premises in dispute.
10. The local commissioner visited the spot on 15.02.2019 and submitted its report dated 27.02.2019. The local commissioner reported as follows:
"6. It is to be stated that, I had inspected the entire property along with the disputed property and only after checking all the documents present in the disputed property, its surroundings and also the locality and other concerned conditions I am of the opinion that the disputed property is being used only for the purpose of carrying out the normal day to day activities related to the Ashram and is having narrow road in front of the same which is surrounded by shops/offices from both the sides but the appellant failed to produce any separate allotment letter/detail regarding the allotment of the disputed property but claimed that the Electricity Bill of the entire Ashram covers the disputed property."
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent/appellant, Ld. Counsel for the department and perused the record.
12. Ld. Counsel Sh. S.D. Windlesh for the respondent/appellant submitted that the appellant is a religious society having the temple and Ashram at the site. The order dated Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR PPA No. 30161/2016 Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram Vs Estate Officer & Anr Page 3 of 10 KUMAR BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.18 16:38:02 +0530 09.03.2011 is passed without following the principles of natural justice. The Estate Officer has failed to consider that this 27 Sq.
Yards of land is part of 1.8 acres of land. The adjoining land measuring 2264.35 Sq. Mts. Has already been regularised by the Land and Development Office in favour of the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 9,79,564. The appellant is pursuing the matter with the Land and Development Office for regularisation of the rest of the land.
13. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Estate Officer has failed to take note of the fact that the appellant is in possession of the land in dispute and the adjoining land even prior to 1911 and also contested the allotment of the said land to Sunni Majlis Auquaf in 1940 by the then British Government vide sheet No. 4, L & O plan No. 943 dated 25.03.1940. thereafter the appellant has been litigating with Union of India since 1947 before District Court and Circuit Bench of Punjab High Court at Delhi before 1966. The appellant has placed on record all these documents showing the ownership and possession even prior to 1911 of the premises in dispute. The department on the other hand has not placed any document/proof of ownership or payment of compensation to the original owners at the time of alleged acquisition vide notification No.775 till date.
14. Ld. Counsel submitted that the evidence of the department was also abruptly closed without affording any opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the witness and to place on record all the relevant documents. Even the department did not place any document in support of their claim before the Ld. Estate Officer.
15. Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld. Estate Officer should have followed the principles of natural justice and afforded him Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL PPA No. 30161/2016 Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram Vs Estate Officer & Anr Page 4 of 10 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.18 16:38:09 +0530 opportunity to place on record his documents and permitted him to cross-examine the witness.
16. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Estate Officer has also not been able to differentiate that the property in dispute is not commercial property but it is exclusively used for religious purposes. The Estate Officer has ignored the provisions of section 7(2) and Rule 8 of the PP Act. Section 7 of PP Act reads as follows:
"7. Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises. - (1) Where any person, is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order.
(2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order.
[(2-A) While making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with [compound interest] at such rate as may be prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1978 (14 of 1978).] (3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause [within seven days from the date of issue thereof], why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.18 16:38:15 +0530 PPA No. 30161/2016 Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram Vs Estate Officer & Anr Page 5 of 10 any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the estate officer. [(3A) If the person in unauthorised occupation of residential accommodation challenges the eviction order passed by the estate officer under sub- section (2) of section 3B in any court, he shall pay damages for every month for the residential accommodation held by him.] [(4) Every order under this section shall be made by the estate officer as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made by him to issue the order within fifteen days specified in the notice.]"
Rule 8 reads as follows:
"Rule 8 Assessment of damages - In assessing damages for unauthorised use and occupation of any public premises, the Estate officer shall take into consideration the following matters, namely:-
a) The purpose and the period for which the public premises were in authorised occupation;
b) The nature, size and standard of the accommodation available in such premises;
c) The rent that would have been realised if the premises had been let on rent for the period of unauthorised occupation to a private person;
d) Any damage done to the premises during the period os unauthorised occupation; and
e) Any other matter relevant for the purpose of assessing the damages."
17. Ld. Counsel submitted that in this case the Ld. Estate Officer has not provided any reason as to how he reached to the amount of damages of Rs. 22,41,860/-. He did not consider that the premises in dispute is used for religious purpose and what are the rates for the use of premises for religious purpose. The Estate Officer has also failed to consider that out of 1.8 acres adjoining land measuring 2264.35 Sq. Mts. was formally allotted to the appellant on 18.10.200 at the rate which is very different from the one now imposed by the Estate Officer. It is prayed that Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR PPA No. 30161/2016 Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram Vs Estate Officer & Anr Page 6 of 10 KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.18 16:38:21 +0530 keeping in view all these facts the appeal be allowed and the order of the Estate Officer be set-aside.
18. Ld. Counsel Sh. Neeraj Tyagi for the respondent submitted that the appellant t does not dispute the fact that the premises in dispute was not allotted to the appellant. In fact the appellant has admitted in the appeal itself that 27 Sq. Mts. of land was not included in the land allotted to the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the respondents referred to the para 2(b) of the appeal which reads as follows:
"2. (b) That the appellant, being a religious society, is carrying on religious activities. It has a temple. The said activities are being carried on a piece of land including the land in dispute situated in Aram Bagh Lane, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. Society was allotted land vide order dated 18.10.2000 on which land society is carrying on its religious activities. Accidently about 27 Sq. Yds. of land was not included in the land allotted to the appellant society. The dispute arises relating to said about 27 Sq. Yds. of land (shortly called disputed land)"
19. Ld. Counsel submitted that from this admission it is clear that the appellant herein admits that it has no document to show that he has a right to possess the land. In other words the appellant is in unauthorised possession of the same.
20. Ld. Counsel submitted that the grounds of appeal are mainly that the Estate Officer did not consider the usage of disputed land and has not taken into consideration the land rate prescribed for residential purposes, whereas he was required to take in to consideration the land rate for religious purpose. The other ground is that the land is situated in Aram Bagh, Pahar Ganj, whereas the Estate Officer erred into considering the land situated on Panchkuian Road.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.10.18 16:38:28 +0530 PPA No. 30161/2016 Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram Vs Estate Officer & Anr Page 7 of 10
21. Ld. Counsel submitted that all these grounds are not available to him as the department has given the details on the basis of which the damages were calculated and the same has been considered and allowed by the Estate Officer. The calculation has been done on the basis of the rate prescribed by the Union of India.
22. Ld. Counsel further submitted that so far as the contention that the principles of natural justice has not been followed is not tenable at all, as the record of the Estate Officer itself shows that despite repeated opportunities the appellant has not availed any opportunity and did not join in the proceedings. Under the circumstances now he cannot be allowed to say that the fair opportunity has not been provided to him. It is prayed that there is no merit in the appeal the same be dismissed.
23. After hearing the arguments and going through the record I found that the appellant has placed reliance on various documents and the revenue record that he is in possession of the land where the temple is situated and the religious activities in the name of Udasin Akhara are being carried out. There is no dispute about the same. The issue is with respect to the 27 sq. yards of land which is situated nearby and is occupied by the appellant. It is admitted by the appellant that the land measuring 27 sq. yards has not been allotted to them. The relevant para reads as under:
"2. (b) That the appellant, being a religious society, is carrying on religious activities. It has a temple. The said activities are being carried on a piece of land including the land in dispute situated in Aram Bagh Lane, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. Society was allotted land vide order dated 18.10.2000 on which land society is carrying on its religious activities. Accidently about 27 Sq.
Yds. of land was not included in the land Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.10.18
PPA No. 30161/2016 Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram Vs Estate Officer & Anr Page 8 of 10 16:38:36 +0530
allotted to the appellant society. The dispute arises relating to said about 27 Sq. Yds. of land (shortly called disputed land)"
24. The bare perusal of this paragraph itself makes it clear that the land regarding which the Estate Officer has passed the order was never allotted to the appellant herein. No document has been placed on record showing that this land was ever allotted to the appellant. The appellant has not been able to show that he has a right to possess the land in dispute. The respondent i.e. Union of India on the other hand has been able to show that the land was acquired by the Government in the year 1911 for establishing the Capital of India. In view of all these facts it is clear that the appellant herein is in unauthorised possession of the premises in dispute. In my considered opinion the Ld. Estate Officer has rightly held the appellant herein to be in unauthorised possession of the premises in dispute and rightly passed the eviction order.
25. The other issue is recovery of damages from the appellant for unauthorisedly occupying the premises in dispute. The law mandates that the Estate officer shall assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and thereafter pass an order to pay the damages. The Rule 8 provides what matters shall be considered by the Estate officer for assessing the damages. It includes the purpose and period of occupation, the nature of the premises and its size, the rent which can be realised if the premises are let out and if there is any damage caused to the premises or any other relevant matter. In the present case no such inquiry has been carried out by the Ld. Estate Officer. There is nothing on record as to how the Ld. Estate Officer has reached to the figure of Rs. 22,41,860/-. The nature of premises and for what Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
PPA No. 30161/2016 Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram Vs Estate Officer & Anr Page 9 of 10 2025.10.18 16:38:44 +0530 purpose it is being used is not decided. There is also nothing on record as to for what market rent the premises can fetch if rented out. There is also no evidence or inquiry conducted as to whether any damage is being caused to the premises. In the absence of any such inquiry being conducted by the Ld. Estate Officer the order of directing the appellant to pay the damages to the tune of Rs. 22,41,860/- in my opinion is not sustainable.
26. In view of the above discussion the order directing the appellant to vacate the premises in dispute is upheld and to that extent the appeal is dismissed. The order directing the appellant to pay damages of Rs. 22,41,860/- is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. Estate Officer to decide the issue with respect to the damages in accordance with Section 7 (2) PP Act read with Rule 8 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
27. Copy of order along with record of the Ld. Estate Officer be sent back.
28. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedVIRENDER by VIRENDER Announced in the open Court KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.10.18 BANSAL on 18th day of October, 2025 16:38:49 +0530 (Virender Kumar Bansal) Principal District & Sessions Judge Central District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi(D) PPA No. 30161/2016 Guru Ram Rai Udasin Ashram Vs Estate Officer & Anr Page 10 of 10