Delhi District Court
Smt. Parmeshwari vs The Estate Officer on 15 November, 2017
In the Court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District:Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
In the matter of :
PPA No. 187/16
In the matter of :
Smt. Parmeshwari
W/o Late Sh. Lakhi Ram
R/o VIII/ 245A, Village Mehram Nagar,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi 110 010 ........Appellant
VERSUS
1. The Estate Officer
Delhi Cantonment Board
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi - 110 010
2. Delhi Cantonment Board
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi - 110 010
(Through its Chief Executive Officer) ........Respondents
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF
UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT,
1971 ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
05.11.2014
Date of filing of appeal : 12.11.2014
Arguments concluded on : 15.11.2017
Pronounced judgment on : 15.11.2017
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 1 of 20
J U D G M E N T :
1.0 Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the appeal of Smt.
Parmeshwari, under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ("the PP Act" in short) against the
order dated 05.11.2014 ("the impugned order" in short) under sub
section (1) of Section 5C PP Act, whereby sealing of unauthorised
construction/erection in the premises bearing House No. VIII/244,
Village Mehram Nagar, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi ("the said premises" in
short) was directed by the Estate Officer.
2.0 The facts in brief as per the appeal are that the appellant
is the authorised occupant/possessor/tenant of the property no. VIII/245
A, Village Mehram Nagar, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi110010( "rented
property" in short). Same was allotted in the name of appellant's
deceased husband Late Sh. Lakhi Ram, on a monthly rent. The property
is governed by The Delhi Cantonment Act, 2006("Cantonment Act" in
short) as well as Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As The Delhi
Cantonment Board failed to maintain the said rented property, the
appellant had to time and again carry out repairs of the said
accommodation, for keeping it safe and habitable. The appellant had only
carried out necessary repairs and had not made any material
alteration/changes in the rented property/ VIII/245A. But to harass her,
on 05.11.2014, the respondent no.1 sealed the rented property/VIII/245A
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 2 of 20
in occupation of the appellant although, the impugned order dated
05.11.2014 pertained to said premises i.e. VIII/244, by serving the said
order by way of affixation at rented property/VIII/245A. Even, a show
cause notice was not issued to the appellant prior to sealing of the rented
premises. Whereas, to all other occupants in the said area, notices under
Section 5B PP Act were issued.
2.1 The appellant has challenged the impugned order inter alia
on the grounds that :
(i) the Estate Officer who passed the impugned order, was
not competent as he was not authorised as the Estate Officer
as contemplated under PP Act;
(ii) no show cause notice prior to passing of the sealing
order was given to the appellant. Such notice is must and
reliance in this respect is placed upon the judgments of
Hon'ble High Court in Rajinder Rai vs MCD and Ors,
2011 IX AD(DELHI) 369 and Praveen Ahuja vs MCD
and Ors. 2011 V AD (DELHI) 758. Those cases dealt with
Section 345 A DMC Act. Section 5C PP Act is similar to
Section 345 A DMC Act. Thus, prior notice was
mandatory. The appellant was thus deprived of an
opportunity of being heard before passing of the impugned
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 3 of 20
order. The impugned order therefore, has been passed in
violation of principles of natural justice;
(iii) the Estate Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant
was only carrying out the repair work and the same did not
come under the definition of unauthorised
construction/erection. The impugned order therefore calls
for setting aside.
3.0 The respondent on the other hand has sought dismissal of
this appeal with heavy cost pleading that the appellant has not
approached this court with clean hands and has suppressed material
facts.
3.1 It is submitted by the respondent vide its reply that the said
premisesVIII/244 forms part of Cantonment Fund Property, managed
and maintained by Cantonment Board. As per the record, the said
premises was rented out to one Sh. Mam Chand. During inspection in the
area by JE(Civil), the said premises/VIII/244 was visited by him on
06.06.2014, 13.06.2014, 08.08.2014 and 27.09.2014 and the appellant was
found carrying out unauthorized and illegal construction and erecting
structure on the said premises. The concerned Junior Engineer submitted
his inspection reports of the even dates mentioning about raising of a
totally new construction upto three stories by erecting columns and slabs.
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 4 of 20
The appellant was issued several notices to stop unauthorised
construction/erection viz notice under Section 239(1) dated 11.06.2014
and notices under Section 239(2) & 239(4) of Cantonment Act dated
23.06.2014, 27.08.2014 and 01.10.2014. Even a notice dated 24.09.2014
under Section 248(1) of the Cantonment Act was issued to the appellant
Parmeshwari Devi to demolish the unauthorized construction herself.
The appellant instead of complying with the said notices, continued with
the unauthorized construction without any authority. Accordingly,
complaint under Section 247 Cantonment Act was filed against the
appellant, which is still pending before the Ld.MM, Dwarka.
3.2 It is further submitted that in view of not stopping of
unauthorised construction by the appellant, the department was also
compelled to initiate proceedings under PP Act and the matter was
transferred to the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer issued notice u/S 5B
PP Act and meanwhile to ensure that no further unauthorised
construction takes place, he issued the impugned order under Section (1)
of Section 5C PP Act with respect to the said premises/VIII/244(which
was rented out on annual rent basis to Sh.Mam Chand but it was the
appellant herein, who was found in occupation/carrying out unauthorized
construction therein); it is the said premises/VIII/244 which has been
sealed by the respondent and not VIII/245A.
3.3 It is also submitted by the respondent that in view of non
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 5 of 20
compliance of notice under Section 239(1) Cantonment Act, the
respondent was even compelled to approach the civil court by way of a
suit for injunction bearing Civil Suit No.1238/2014 against the appellant
to restrain her from carrying out unauthorized construction in the said
premises. The Ld. Civil Judge had even directed the appellant to
maintain the status quo. Ld. Counsel for the respondent during the
course of arguments submitted that the said suit however was
subsequently dismissed, being not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction.
3.4 It was further pleaded by the respondent that the judgments
relied upon by the appellant are not applicable to the present case as the
appellant was given repeated notices u/S 239 of Cantonment Act and
even a show cause notice u/S 5B(1) PP Act was served upon him, to put
forward her defence if any. Even otherwise, provisions of DMC Act,
1957 are entirely different from Section 5C PP Act.
4.0 I have heard Sh. Shekhar Nanavaty, Advocate for the
appellant and Sh. M.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent and have
perused the record carefully.
5.0 Let me first deal with the appellant's contention that the
impugned order under Section 5C(1) PP Act could not have been passed
without prior notice. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the respondent
submitted that there is no requirement of issuing of any show cause
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 6 of 20
notice prior to passing an order of sealing under Section 5C(1) PP Act.
Even otherwise, several notices under Section 239(1) and a notice under
Section 248(1) Cantonment Act, were issued to the appellant, which have
not been disputed. Further, the appellant was also issued notice under
Section 5B(1) PP Act. During the pendency of proceedings under
Section 5B PP Act, immediate action/order under Section 5C(1) PP Act
was called for to safeguard govt. property. Thus, the appellant was given
every opportunity to show cause.
5.1 To appreciate the rival contentions, let me at the outset refer
here to Sections 5B and 5C PP Act which are reproduced here under:
"5B.Order of demolition of unauthorised constructions-(1)
Where the erection of any building or execution of any work
has been commenced, or is being carried on, or has been
completed on any public premises by any person in occupation
of such public premises under an authority (whether by way of
grant or any other mode of transfer), and such erection of
building or execution of work is in contravention of, or not
authorised by, such authority, then, the estate officer may, in
addition to any other action that may be taken under this Act
or in accordance with the terms of the authority aforesaid, make
an order, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that such
erection or work shall be demolished by the person at whose
instance the erection or work has been commenced, or is being
carried on, or has been completed, within such period, as may be
specified in the order. 1[* * *].
Provided that no order under this subsection shall be made
unless the person concerned has been given by means of notice
2[of not less than seven days] served in the prescribed manner, a
reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should
not be made.
(2) Where the erection or work has not been completed, the
estate officer may, by the same order or by a separate order,
whether made at the time of the issue of the notice under the
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 7 of 20
proviso to subsection (1) or at any other time, direct the person
at whose instance the erection or work has been commenced,
or is being carried on, to stop the erection or work until the
expiry of the period within which an appeal against the order of
demolition, if made, may be preferred under section 9.
(3) ...........
(4) ...........
(5) ...........
5C. Power to seal unauthorised construction- (1) It shall be
lawful for the estate officer, at any time, before or after
making an order of demolition under Section 5B, to make an
order directing the sealing of such erection or work or of the
public premises in which such erection or work has been
commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in such
manner as may be prescribed, for the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of the Act, or for preventing any dispute as to the
nature and extent of such erection or work.
(2) Where any erection or work or any premises in which any
erection or work is being carried on has, or have been sealed, the
estate officer may, for the purpose of demolishing such erection or
work in accordance with the provisions of this Act, order such seal
to be removed.
(3) No person shall remove such seal except
(a) under an order made by the estate officer under subsection
(2); or
(b) under an order of the appellate officer made in an appeal under
this Act]"
5.2 From the plain reading of the above provisions, it is
evident that in the proceedings under Section 5B(1) PP Act, the
Estate Officer can direct the person to stop the erection or work,
even while issuing notice under Section 5B(1) PP Act. Section
5C(1) PP Act further empowers the Estate Officer to even direct
sealing of such unauthorised work/ erection before making an order
of demolition under Section 5B PP Act. No notice is contemplated
under Section 5C(1) before an order for ceiling of unauthorized
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 8 of 20
work/erection is made, during the pendency of proceedings under
Section 5B PP Act. Whereas, proviso to Section 5B(1) PP Act
specifically lays down that no order for demolition of any work shall
be passed without prior notice. Conjoint reading of Sections 5B and
Section 5C PP Act, makes it clear that Section 5C PP Act provides
for interim measure of sealing the public premises, pending
proceedings for determination of issue of demolition of
unauthorized construction under Section 5B PP Act for "preventing
any dispute as to the nature and extent of such erection of work".
5.3 Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that no notice
under Section 5C PP Act is required to be issued becomes further
clear from the fact that no Form for such notice is prescribed.
Perusal of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Rules, 1971 ("PP Rules" in short) reveals that
although, specific Form for issuance of notice under various
provisions of the PP Act, including Sections 5B(1),5B(2),5B(5), are
prescribed, no such Form under subsections (1) & (2) of Section
5C PP Act is prescribed. Only Forms for issuance of order under
these subSections, are prescribed under the PP Rules.
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 9 of 20
5.4 In view of the above, it is evident that no separate notice
under Section 5C(1) PP Act was required to be issued to the
appellant before passing of the impugned order. Even if for a while,
the appellant's plea that notice under Section 5C(1) PP Act should
have been given and the appellant should have been heard by the
Estate Officer before the passing of sealing order, is considered, let
me see whether the same helps the appellant.
5.4.1 Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the
repeated "stop work" notices under subSections (1), (2) & (4) of
Section 239(1) of Delhi Cantonment Act were issued to the
appellant. The respondent has placed on record copies of notices
issued to the appellant with respect to the unauthorised construction
at the said premises VIII/244 under Section 239(1) Cantonment Act
dated 11.06.2014 and notices under sub sections (2)&(4) of Section
239 Cantonment Act, dated 23.06.2014, 27.08.2014 and 01.10.2014.
The appellant has not disputed these notices. Notice dated
11.06.2014 under Section 239(1) issued to the appellant reads as
under:
"Telephone No.25695450 No.DCB/4UC/P/Vill.Mehram Nagar/201415
Office of the Cantonment Board
Delhi Cantonment110010.
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 10 of 20
Dated 11 June 2014
To
Smt. Parmeshwari W/o Late Sh. Lakhi Ram
H.No.VIII/244, Village Mehram Nagar
Delhi Cantt.
SUB. UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION BY SMT.
PARMESHWAR DEVI W/O LATE SH. LAKHI RAM
SH.LAKHI RAM.
It has been reported to me that you are carrying out unauthorized
construction at premises bearing No.VIII/244, Village Mehram Nagar, Delhi
Cantt without taking any prior sanction from the competent authority as required
under Section 238 of the Cantonments Act 2006. I under signed hereby order you
to stop the unauthorized construction forthwith in terms of powers vested with me
under Section 239(1) of Cantonment Act, 2006 failing which I shall be compelled to
initiate further necessary action against you under provisions of Cantonment Act
2006 as provided under law.
Chief Executive Officer
Delhi Cantonment
(Sanjeev Kumar)"
5.4.2 Similar notices under Section 239(2) & (4) Cantonment
Act were even issued to SHO, PS Delhi Cantt. On 23.06.2014,
27.08.2014 and 01.10.2014 with copy to the appellant. Vide these
notices, the SHO was called upon as under:
"Telephone No. 25695450 No. DCB/4/UC/P/Vill.Mehram Nagar/ 201415
Office of the Cantonment Board
Delhi Cantonment - 110 010
Dated 23 June, 2014
To
The S.H.O.
Police Station
Delhi Cantt.
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 11 of 20
SUB: UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION BY SMT. PARMESHWARI
W/O LATE SH. LAKHI RAM
It has been reported to me that Smt. Parmeshwari W/o Late Sh. Lakhi Ram is
carrying out unauthorized construction at premises No. VIII/244, Village
Mehram Nagar, Delhi Cantt. despite issue of notice under section 239(1) of
Cantonments Act 2006. In view of above you are requested to remove the persons
from site who are carrying out unauthorized construction and seize the
construction material, tools, etc. under section 239(2) of Cantonment Act 2006. You
are also requested to depute a police officer under section 239(4) of the Act to
watch the premises so that no unauthorized construction takes place and the
cost of such deputation shall be paid by the person at whose instance such erection
or execution is being continued.
Chief Executive Officer
Delhi Cantonment
(Sanjeev Kumar)
Copy to:
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police For information and issue of
South West District necessary directions to the SHO,
Sector19, Dwarka Delhi Cantt.
Delhi.
2. DEO, Delhi Circle For information please.
Delhi Cantt.
3. Smt. Parmeshwari W/o Late Sh. Lakhi Ram
H. No. VIII/244, Village Mehram Nagar
Delhi Cantt."
5.4.3 Thus, from the above, it is evident that v ide above notices
the respondent was informed about the report of unauthorized
construction at the said premises without prior sanction of the
competent authority and she was directed to stop the unauthorized
construction immediately. She was also informed that otherwise the
Board shall be compelled to initiate necessary action against her
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 12 of 20
under Cantonment Act. And vide above letters dated 23.06.2014,
27.08.2014 and 01.10.2014 SHO PS Delhi Cantt was requested to
depute a Police officer under Section 239 to watch the said premises
to ensure that no further unauthorized construction takes place.
5.4.4 Further, it is the case of the respondent that as these
notice were not replied to by the appellant, the respondent was
compelled to initiate proceedings under the Cantonment Act.
Accordingly, a notice dated 24.09.2014 under Section 248(1) of the
Cantonment Act was issued to the appellant Parmeshwari Devi to
demolish the unauthorized construction herself. Against the same, the
appellant preferred an appeal under Section 340 of the Cantonment Act
before the Principal Director, Defence Estates, Western Command,
Chandigarh; the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2015,
being barred by jurisdiction. Ld. Counsel for the respondent placed on
record copy of said notice, appellant's appeal and the order passed
thereon. Same are not disputed. Reference is thus made to these
documents. Relevant portion of the appellant's appeal under Section 248
Cantonment Act and order is reproduced herein:
"1. That the appellant in the present appeal is the
possessor/occupant of the property bearing house no.
VIII/245A (cutting in number made) Village Mehram Nagar,
Delhi Cantt10 herein after referred to as 'demised premises'......
2. ...........
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 13 of 20
3.That the appellant received a notice dated 24.09.2014,
from the respondent. That the respondent in the said notice
has passed an order under Section 248 subSection (1) of the
Cantonment Act, 2006 to stop the erection/reerection and
also to demolish the erection/reerection completed by the
appellant, within 30 days of the receipt of the said notice.
4................That in fact no such inspection as stipulated in the
notice, as stated above, was ever conducted and hence no copy
of the same was provided to the appellant with the
Notice............
5.............
6. That the appellant submits that no material changes have
been taking place in the said demised property. That in fact it is
only the repair work............That it is therefore submitted by the
appellant that the same is in accordance with the building bye
laws.
7...............That thus the appellant was constrained to take up
the said necessary task of maintaining and repairing his
property situated at VIII/245A (cutting in number made)
Village Mehram Nagar,Delhi Cantt10. That it is pertinent to
mention here that the respondent has not fulfilled the said
obligation since long ...., the respondents had the audacity to
serve the notice dated 24.09.2014 upon the appellant. That it is
submitted that the said notice is invalid and mala fide in nature.
8...............
9..............
10. That the appellant respectfully submits that the said
demised premised are property of the respondent who is in the
actual owner and the appellant is just an occupier of the
same..........................
11.............
12.............
13. That the respondent vide impugned order dated 24.09.2014
served the notice upon the appellant ignoring the aforesaid
defence of the appellant.
14............"
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 14 of 20
5.4.5 On the above appeal of the appellant, following order came
to be passed:
"PRINCIPAL DIRECTORATE OF DEFENCE ESTATES,
WESTERN COMMAND, KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR
9A, 5TH FLOOR, CHANDIGARH160009.
Appeal No. and date : Nil(received through Cantonment Board
Delhi on 13.10.2015)
Appellant: Smt. Parmeshwari W/o Late Shri Lakhi Ram
Respondent: Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board,
Delhi Cantt.
........
Property bearing H.No.VIII/244, Village Mehram Nagar, Delhi Cantt.
Appeared: None. At Admission stage The appeal has been preferred by the appellant against Notice dated 24.09.2014 issued by the respondent under subSection(1) of Section 248 of the Cantonments Act 2006.
2. Perusal of the appeal pleading reveals that the petitioner being aggrieved of the said notice has preferred the present appeal. The report submitted by the respondent reveals that the property in question (under appeal) is situated outside the civil area. As per the provisions under Section 340 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, the appellate authority is the GOC inC, Western Command in respect of sites situated outside the civil area and not the Principal Director, Defence Estates, the Command. Consequently the appeal lacking in jurisdiction is not maintainable. The issuance of notice to either of the parties is therefore dispensed with.
Order The appeal being barred by jurisdiction is hereby dismissed.
Dated 02 Nov 2015 (Dr. A. K. Kapoor) (Principal Director, Defence Estates) Western Command Chandigarh"
5.4.6 The fact that the respondent also approached the Court by way of Civil Suit No.1238/2014 against the appellant to restrain her from carrying out unauthorized construction in the said PPA No. 187/16 Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 15 of 20 premises, is not disputed. Ld. Counsel for the respondent filed a copy of order of Ld. Civil Judge dated 17.11.2014 in the said suit whereby exparte order for maintaining status quo was passed against the appellant herein. The respondent has submitted that the said suit came to be finally dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
5.5 From the above, it is more than evident that the appellant had due notice in the matter. It is not as if she was caught unaware. The appellant was asked to stop unauthorised construction and thereafter, she was even called upon to demolish the said construction herself. Only after resorting to all the proceedings, the respondent referred the matter to Estate Officer; the Estate Officer while issuing notice under Section 5B(1) PP Act ordered sealing of unauthorised construction under Section 5C(1) PP Act. Perusal of the Estate Officer's record reveals that the appellant approached the court against the sealing order under Section 5C(1) PP Act, but has not cared to file any reply to notice under Section 5B(1) PP Act before the Estate Officer.
5.6 Thus, it is apparent that the appellant had sufficient notice prior to action under Section 5C(1) PP Act; the impugned order of sealing under Section 5C PP Act was passed as per law in PPA No. 187/16 Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 16 of 20 view of alleged continued construction/erection on the public premises, without permission of the competent authority, in order to safeguard the government property/avoid any dispute in this respect. Thus, the aforesaid judgments in Rajinder Rai (supra) and Pravin Ahuja (supra), as relied upon by the appellant are of no assistance to her.
5.7 During the course of arguments today, Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied upon another order dated 26.11.2012 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gurmeet Singh vs The Estate Officer & Anr., W.P.(C) 7327/2012 to further espouse his plea that prior notice was required before passing an order under Section 5C(1). It may be mentioned that the facts in Gurmeet Singh's case (supra) were very different. In that case, a notice u/S 5B PP Act was issued to the petitioner soon after the inauguration of the restaurant in the public premises. The said notice was promptly replied to by the petitioner pointing out that the hall in respect of which the said notice was issued was as per sanctioned building plan. However, the petitioner also filed a writ petition apprehending sealing of the said restaurant by the respondent by invoking Section 5C PP Act. In the writ petition, despite notice, none on behalf of the respondent had put in appearance before the court. In those facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:
PPA No. 187/16 Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 17 of 20"..........No doubt Section 5C of The Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 authorizes respondents to seal the unauthorized construction even during the pendency of eviction proceedings . However, unless and until an order from the first respondent i.e. the Estate Officer under Section 5C of The Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,1971 is obtained by the second respondent, sealing of subject premises be not undertaken by the second respondent. It goes without saying that the first respondent shall pass a speaking order after hearing authorized representative of petitioner before Section 5C of The Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is invoked by the second respondent......."
5.8 Facts in the instant case are very distinct. As already noted above, the appellant had sufficient prior notice. Further, in this respect, admittedly, in the proceedings under Section 5B PP Act, notice was issued to the appellant. Appellant appeared before the Estate Officer through her Advocate Sh. Shekhar Nanavati; appellant is yet to file any reply before the Estate Officer. The said proceedings are still pending before the Estate Officer and are now fixed for 17.11.2017.
6.0 As far as other pleas of the appellant that the respondent has sealed the tenanted premises/ VIII/254A, Mehram Nagar and not the said premises / VIII/244 and that she had not made any unauthorised construction etc., are concerned, as per directions of the learned predecessor court dated 21.12.2016, Sh. Ram Sharan, J.E. (Civil) filed a report dated 14.11.2017 before the court mentioning that he had inspected public premises bearing no. VIII/244 and had reported unauthorised construction being carried PPA No. 187/16 Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 18 of 20 out by the appellant Smt. Parmeshwari Devi in the said premises. Be that as it may. The appellant can raise all these pleas before the Estate Officer, where proceedings under Section 5B(1) are still pending.
7.0 It may be mentioned that although, the appellant vide this appeal has also pleaded that the Estate Officer in present case, who is Chief Executive Officer, was not competent to act as Estate Officer. But, she did not press this ground during the course of the arguments. Be that as it may. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Estate Officer was duly appointed and placed on record copy of the Gazette Notification no. S.R.O. 235 dated 21.07.1978 published in the Gazette of India on August 5th,1978 in support. It is seen that vide this notification, "All Cantonment Executive Officers" are authorised to act as the Estate Officer for the purpose of "Premises under the administrative control of the Ministry of Defence placed under the management of the respective Cantonment Boards under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 or vested in them under the Cantonment Property Rules 1925." Thus, the Estate Officer was duly appointed.
8.0 In view of the above facts and circumstances and PPA No. 187/16 Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 19 of 20 findings recorded in preceding paras, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
9.0 Appeal is dismissed.
10.0 Estate Officer's record be returned along with copy of this order.
11.0 Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Poonam A. Bamba)
th
on this 15 day of November, 2017 District & Sessions Judge
PHC, New Delhi District
PPA No. 187/16
Parmeshwari V. Estate Officer Anr. Page 20 of 20