Delhi District Court
Hukmo Devi vs . Delhi Development Authority on 2 February, 2019
PPA/02/15
Hukmo Devi Vs. Delhi Development Authority
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PPA/02/15
CNR No.DLKA040000602014
In the matter of;
Smt. Hukmo Devi
W/o Shri Rishal Singh
R/o 460, Gali No.2, Arjun Mohalla,
Maujpur, Delhi110053 ..... Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through the Office of Estate OfficerII
Damages Section, ABlock, Ground Floor,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 22082014
Reserved for order on : 19012019
Order announced on : 02022019
ORDER
1. This is an appeal preferred against the order dt.10072014 passed by the Court of Shri O.P. Madan, Estate OfficerII, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi in File No.EV/TN Page No. 1 /8 PPA/02/15 Hukmo Devi Vs. Delhi Development Authority 2(63)2011/515/D/49/CH(S)1132 whereby in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the Estate OfficerII had passed an eviction order against the appellant herein for vacating the land measuring 5 Bigha & 14 Biswa occupied by her.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for DDA and meticulously gone through the record.
3. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that impugned order passed by the Estate OfficerII is contrary to law and same is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for DDA has submitted that the impugned order has been passed taking into consideration the law and factual position and prays for the dismissal of the appeal.
5. In appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned order on one of the points that same has been passed ex parte against the appellant without affording her any opportunity to lead her evidence and addressing final arguments.
Page No. 2 /8
PPA/02/15 Hukmo Devi Vs. Delhi Development Authority
6. There is absolutely no strength in the point taken by the appellant for the simple reason that in the order dt.25102012 passed by the Estate OfficerII, it has been clearly mentioned that Smt. Hukmo Devi along with her Advocate Shri Alok Gupta have filed vakalatnama and objections to the notice. Therefore, very early in the case, the appellant had entered her appearance along with her counsel to defend her case. It was her duty to appear on each and every date of hearing and she could have either appeared herself or through her counsel. At this stage, she cannot take advantage of her non appearance and the nonappearance of her counsel.
7. The appellant has also taken a stand that she is a poor farmer and by hard labour and efforts, she had developed the barren land for agriculture purposes and earning her livelihood from the same. She has also taken a stand that she is a regular member of Delhi Peasant Cooperative Multipurpose Society Ltd. and holding land measuring 5 Bigha 14 Biswa out of the land bearing Khasra No.213/17 Min situated at Chiragah (S) Delhi and paying the Page No. 3 /8 PPA/02/15 Hukmo Devi Vs. Delhi Development Authority lagan/rent to the society and as such, she is not an unauthorized occupant of the land. She has also mentioned that society is regularly paying the lease rent to the DDA from time to time and DDA is accepting the rent. Therefore, the question of expiry of determination of lease deed in favour of DDA does not arise.
8. In order to answer the aforesaid stands taken by the appellant, it would be appropriate to go back in the history pertaining to the land. It is not disputed that an agreement between the Secretary of State for India and Delhi Improvement Trust in regard to administration of certain government property came into existence on 31031937 by way of a written agreement. The trust came into possession of "Nazul Land" described in Schedule1 of the agreement for the supervision and determination of the said "Nazul Land" on behalf of the government. By virtue of aforesaid agreement, the land in question came under the trust. Thereafter, the Delhi Development Authority became the successor body of Delhi Improvement Trust and the entire land fell under DDA.
Page No. 4 /8
PPA/02/15 Hukmo Devi Vs. Delhi Development Authority
9. In the year 1949, large tracts of the land falling in different villages were given on temporary lease of 5 years by erstwhile Delhi Improvement Trust vide Resolution No.157 dt.29061949 to the Delhi Peasant Cooperative Society Ltd. for collective farming. The lease was extended from time to time which was eventually expired on 14061966. The DDA had determined the lease of the society and called upon the occupier of the land to hand over the possession to Tehsildar. Therefore, the temporary lease in favour of the society stood expired on 14061966 and the society was informed of expiry of lease and was asked to hand over the possession of the land to DDA vide DDA's letter No.L.6(7)64 dt.31071967.
10. The fact that after the expiry of the lease and not granting any further extension of lease by DDA after its letter dt.31071967, the appellant has got no right, title and interest in the land in question and she has become unauthorized occupant of the land in question. Since she is in unauthorized occupation of the land, she is liable to be evicted from the land in question. It is pointed out that any money Page No. 5 /8 PPA/02/15 Hukmo Devi Vs. Delhi Development Authority suo moto given either by society or anyone else on their behalf does not itself create any right, title or interest in the property in question.
11. There is absolutely no strength in the points taken by the appellants as the fact of the matter is that the lease deed was never renewed by DDA and it was determined on 14061966 and the society was informed to handover the possession of the land to DDA vide its letter dt.31071967. The Estate OfficerII has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the matter while passing the impugned order.
12. The Division Bench of our own High Court has been pleased to delve on the issue in detail in respect of the same land in a case titled as Sunil Kumar & Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority in LPA 479/2013 along with various other 36 LPAs and 5 Writ Petitions vide its own order dt.31012018 with identical issues involved, the Hon'ble High Court has declared the occupants as unauthorized occupants and defined unauthorized occupants as any person including those, who had entered into the public premises Page No. 6 /8 PPA/02/15 Hukmo Devi Vs. Delhi Development Authority under an authority given to him, but the said authority has either expired or has been determined. It has been clearly held that on determination of the lease by efflux of time or otherwise, the appellants and writ petitioners became unauthorized occupants occupying the government land.
13. It further transpires that the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was also dismissed in a case titled as Shiv Shankar & Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority arising out of impugned final judgment and order dt.31012018 in LPA No.479/2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
14. Therefore, in the present case, the appellant is an unauthorized occupant within the meaning of Section 2(G) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 since the expiry of the lease and its subsequent determination as the lease in question stood expired in the year 1967.
15. The appellant has also failed to show if she had become Page No. 7 /8 PPA/02/15 Hukmo Devi Vs. Delhi Development Authority tenant under the society. The appellant has also failed to show if the order passed by the Estate OfficerII is without any jurisdiction and authority.
16. No other point has been raised in this appeal. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, same is accordingly dismissed.
17. The appellant is directed to vacate the land under her occupation and deliver the possession of the same within one month from today to the respondent failing which the respondent is at liberty to take recourse to coercive action.
18. Trial Court Record along with copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.
19. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
ON 02nd FEBRUARY, 2019 DEEPAK
JAGOTRA
Location:
JAGOTRA KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
Date: 2019.02.02
16:06:47 +0530
(DEEPAK JAGOTRA)
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Page No. 8 /8