Delhi District Court
Arun Kumar vs Estate Officer on 12 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
PPA No. 37/2017
ARUN KUMAR
S/o SHRI RISHI PAL SINGH
R/o HOUSE NO. 17/900,
LODHI COLONY (TYPEIII),
NEW DELHI ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. ESTATE OFFICER
DIRECTORATE OF ESTATE
LITIGATION SECTION
ROOM NO. 514'C' WING,
NIRMAN BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI
2. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATE,
THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR
(SUBLETTING SECTION),
5TH FLOOR, NIRMAN BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 05.09.2017
First date before this court : 06.09.2017
Arguments concluded on : 30.03.2019
Date of Decision : 12.04.2019
Appearance: Shri Rohit Sharma, counsel for appellant
Shri Mimansak Bhardwaj and Shri K. N. Mishra, counsel for respondent
PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 1 of 21 pages
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant has challenged eviction order dated 29.08.2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned eviction order"), passed by the Estate Officer under the provisions of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Upon service of notice of this appeal under Section 9 of the Act, respondents appeared through counsel and filed the original record of the proceedings conducted before the Estate Officer. Respondents also filed reply, opposing the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for both sides, who took me through the Estate Officer records.
2. By way of the impugned eviction order, the Estate Officer invoked powers under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, thereby directing the present appellant and all those who may be in occupation of quarter no. 17/900, Lodhi Colony (TypeC), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the said premises") to vacate the same within fifteen days, failing which they would be liable to be evicted with use of force.
3. The factual matrix, as set up by the appellant is as follows.
PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 2 of 21 pages 3.1 As an incident of service as Junior Engineer in CPWD, the appellant was allotted the said premises as residence for himself and his family.
3.2 On 27.07.2016 at 03:40 pm, an inspection was conducted by the concerned department of the present respondents in the absence of the appellant and at that time, the said premises were found locked, so inspection of the rooftop was carried out where members of the inspecting team found two rooms with green sheet shedding and two toilets. The inspecting team also found one person namely Saurabh Ganguly on the rooftop. The inspecting team informed Saurabh Ganguly that they were carrying out security check of the area as a precursor exercise to the Independence Day celebrations in order to ensure that there is no anti social elements in the locality. Saurabh Ganguly informed the inspecting team that he was guest of the present appellant as he came to Delhi from Bihar to inquire about examinations for some job. As desired by the inspecting team, Saurabh Ganguly provided them a copy of his driving license and they took his signatures on some blank forms under the pretext of formality.
3.3 Officials of respondent converted the said blank forms into inspection report alleging that the rooftop had been let out by the present appellant to two persons namely Saurabh Ganguly and Rajiv Ranjan. Appellant was not granted reasonable opportunity to present his case and PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 3 of 21 pages the allotment cancellation order dated 19.01.2017 was passed and appeal against the said order also was dismissed.
3.4 During pendency of appeal against allotment cancellation order, the appellant received show cause notice dated 24.03.2017 under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, in compliance whereof the appellant appeared before the Estate Officer and submitted documentary record, namely copies of school fees receipts of his daughter, Aadhar card, bank passbook, MTNL Bill, PNG bill, water bill and driving license etc to establish that the appellant with his family is residing in the said premises. The appellant also placed before the Estate Officer, Aadhar Card of Saurabh Ganguli and signed statements of Saurabh Ganguly and his neighbor Pushpa Bhutani. Without taking into consideration the documentary material, the Estate Officer passed the impugned eviction order.
3.5 Hence, the present appeal.
4. Respondents in their reply to the memo of appeal set up their version as follows.
4.1 Appellant not only erected rooms on the barsati above the said premises but even rented out the same.
PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 4 of 21 pages 4.2 On 27.07.2016 at about 03:40 pm, the said premises were inspected and in that exercise the said premises were found locked, so rooftop was opened and it was found that two rooms with green sheet shedding and two toilets were constructed. The inspecting team found two occupants of the said two rooms on the rooftop of the said premises and the said occupants were Saurabh Ganguly and Rajiv Ranjan, who had been sublet the said two rooms.
4.3 On the basis of the said inspection report, show cause notice dated 29.08.2016 was issued to the appellant for hearing on 27.09.2016. In the course of hearing dated 27.09.2016, the appellant submitted a number of documents to establish that he along with his family was residing in the said premises and that Saurabh Ganguly and Rajiv Ranjan were his guests. Therefore, allotment of the said premises in the name of the appellant was canceled vide order dated 19.01.2017.
4.4 After service of show cause notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, the appellant was given opportunity to be heard and thereafter the impugned eviction order was passed by the Estate Officer.
4.5 Therefore, the present appeal is devoid of merits.
PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 5 of 21 pages
5. On the very first effective hearing of this appeal, it was contended on behalf of appellant that the inspection report, which is at the foundation of entire proceedings lacks credence in so far as according to the inspection report, the inspection was carried out on 27.07.2016 but the report was signed on 28.07.2016, which could not be explained by learned counsel for respondent so he sought adjournment and under such circumstances, operation of the impugned eviction order was stayed till next date, directing the respondents to file original records of the eviction proceedings.
6. During final arguments, learned counsel for appellant assailed the inspection report pointing out that the same was signed on 28.07.2016 whereas inspection was allegedly carried out on 27.07.2016 and the report was prepared conveying as if the same had been prepared on the spot. It was argued by learned counsel for appellant that no inspection by the officers of the Estate Department was carried out and the inspecting team which visited the said premises was from CPWD for security check with the aim of ascertaining if any anti social element is present in the area, which was being combed as security measure prior to the Independence Day. It was also argued by learned counsel for appellant that there is no evidence at all to show that the alleged rooms on the rooftop of the said premises were constructed by the appellant. It was further argued that the show cause notice called upon the appellant only to explain his being in possession of the said premises and not to PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 6 of 21 pages disprove the alleged tenancy. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the notice under Section 4 of the Act is totally vague and did not allege subletting, so appellant was deprived of effective right to be heard. Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance of the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Estate Officer vs Beena Rani, WP(c) 10492/16 decided on 31.10.2017 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha and in the case of Union of India vs Sunil Dutt, WP(c) 8850/2007 decided on 27.01.2010 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Khanna, in support of his arguments that the inspection report ought to have been proved before the Estate Officer in the course of eviction proceedings but the same was not done, so the impugned order is not sustainable.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent sought to place reliance on affidavit dated 20.03.2018 of Shri Naveen Yadav, Director, Directorate of Estates, New Delhi whereby the discrepancy of date of inspection and date of signatures was tried to be clarified. It was argued by learned counsel for respondent that since the appellant admits the inspection having taken place, discrepancy of dates in the inspection report becomes irrelevant. Learned counsel for respondent argued that the inspection report was duly signed by Saurabh Ganguly, found present in the said premises at the time of inspection. It was also argued by learned counsel for respondent that since now the appellant stands transferred, he has no right to retain the said premises. In support of his PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 7 of 21 pages arguments, learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Barkha Ram vs Union of India, W.P. (C) 1044/2018 decided on 29.08.2018; J.P. Yadav vs Union of India, W.P. (C) 11063/2006 decided on 08.08.2011; and Vijender Singh vs Union of India, W.P. (C) 9845/2018 decided on 10.10.2018.
8. At this stage, it would be apposite to traverse through the original record of eviction proceedings conducted by the Estate Officer. After taking up the matter by way of undated proceedings, the Estate Officer directed issuance of notice to the present appellant for 18.04.2017. On 18.04.2017, the appellant took time to file reply to the show cause notice, so the matter was adjourned to 23.05.2017. On 23.05.2017, the present appellant requested for adjournment on the ground that his appeal against cancellation of allotment was pending, so the matter was posted to 27.06.2017. On 27.06.2017, the Estate Officer was again informed that the appeal against cancellation of allotment remained pending so the Estate Officer called for comments from the concerned department and posted the matter for 27.07.2017. On 27.07.2017 again the present appellant requested for time to take up the matter with the Appellate Authority, so the matter was posted for 24.08.2017. On 24.08.2017, the present appellant informed the Estate Officer about dismissal of his appeal against cancellation of his PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 8 of 21 pages allotment and filed reply, so the Estate Officer reserved the matter for orders. On 29.08.2017, the impugned eviction order was passed. It would be pertinent to notice that throughout the proceedings before the Estate Officer none appeared on behalf of the present respondent department ever.
9. As mentioned above, on the very first effective hearing before this court in presence of both sides, it was noticed that according to the inspection report, the inspection was carried out 27.07.2016, but the report was signed on 28.07.2016 and since learned counsel for respondent expressed inability to explain, operation of the impugned eviction order was stayed till next date. In the course of further arguments, on being pointed out further discrepancies, which could not be explained by learned counsel for respondent, a specific affidavit of the present respondent no. 2 was directed to be filed. In compliance, respondents filed affidavit dated 20.03.2018 of Shri Naveen Yadav, Director, Directorate of Estates.
10. Admittedly, before the Estate Officer, the alleged inspection report was never produced in original. Even before this court, the original inspection report was produced only after specific directions.
11. At this stage, it would be apposite to examine the inspection report dated 27.07.2016, signed on 28.07.2016. The said inspection PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 9 of 21 pages report is written with two different pens in two different handwritings. According to the said report, the inspection was carried out at 03:40 pm on 27.07.2016 by a team of two inspecting officers who found the said premises locked so could not verify details of the allottee but since the roof was open, they carried out inspection on the rooftop. Further, as per the inspection report, two rooms with green sheet shedding and two toilets were found constructed on the rooftop but purpose of the construction could not be ascertained by the inspecting team. As per inspection report, two persons were found staying in the rooms on the rooftop and they were one Rajiv Ranjan and one Saurabh Ganguly. Driving license of Saurabh Ganguly was examined by the inspecting team while Rajiv Ranjan was found to be brother of the allottee. The inspecting team also recorded mobile phone numbers of the occupant Saurabh Ganguly and recorded that "the occupant admitted that he is staying here on rent (amount not disclosed).". In column C titled:
signed statements of occupants of the inspection report, only signatures of Saurabh Ganguly were taken by the inspecting team. The inspection report also includes four photographs out of which one photograph depicts house number of the said premises but no person is seen and even the gate is shown unlocked and unlatched though according to inspection report, the said premises were found locked at the time of inspection. Remaining three photographs do not depict any house number and one of those photographs reflects only one person, though according to the inspection report there were two occupants.
PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 10 of 21 pages
12. The inspection report, despite the above mentioned circumstances inviting suspicion as regards its genuineness, was never placed in original before the Estate Officer at any stage. Even before this court, when the original record of the eviction proceedings was submitted by the respondents, the same did not contain the original inspection report and for filing the same, respondents had to be specifically directed.
13. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Saurabh Ganguli, the alleged tenant would be so gullible that he would tell the inspecting team that he was a tenant in the said premises and would even disclosed his driving license number, which in any case is of Bihar and not of Delhi. There is no explanation as to why the inspecting team did not obtain signatures of any neighbor and/or officials from local CPWD office and/or the other alleged tenant Rajiv Ranjan on the inspection report if they could take signatures of Saurabh Ganguli. Then, despite there being a specific part, column C in the inspection report, titled :
"Signed Statement of Occupants", the inspecting team did not write a signed statement of either of the alleged tenant though obtained signatures of Saurabh Ganguli in that portion.
14. As mentioned above, the inspection was allegedly carried out 27.07.2016 and the inspection report was purportedly prepared on PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 11 of 21 pages the spot itself, but the same was signed on the next day 28.07.2016. And the report is clearly in two different handwritings with two different pens. No satisfactory explanation was advanced from the side of the respondents as regards these aspects. The explanation rendered in the affidavit dated 20.03.2018 of Shri Naveen Yadav, Director, Directorate of Estates to the effect that 355 quarters had to be inspected within 1012 days fails to inspire confidence. In the name of workload, which got accumulated due to previous laxity of the concerned officials, fairness cannot be thrown to winds. In the case of Beena Rani (supra) also, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court having observed use of different pens and different handwritings in the inspection report and opted not to rely on such report of the inspecting team.
15. The questions that remain unanswered are as to whether on 27.07.2016 any inspection was carried out as alleged by the respondents and if so, whether any tenant was found occupying the said premises or even the rooms allegedly constructed on the rooftop. Argument of learned counsel for respondent that appellant has admitted factum of inspection is not correct because what has been admitted by the appellant is an exercise of security drill as a precursor to the Independence Day celebrations and not an inspection to check whether there was any unauthorized tenancy in the said premises. Further, as mentioned above, it does not appeal to reason that a person who is occupying the premises as an illegal tenant would be so gullible that he would PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 12 of 21 pages introduce himself to be the tenant and would even disclose his driving license number, and mobile phone number but at the same time would not disclose the rate of rent. Even Shri Naveen Yadav, Director, Directorate of Estates in his affidavit dated 20.03.2018 stated that it cannot be expected from the occupant that he would admit himself to be tenant in the course of inspection. In the case of Beena Rani (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the view taken by the learned District Judge in observing : "it cannot be overlooked that had there been no bonafides in the presence of Smt. Pushpa Rawat, she would not have produced her election identity card showing the address different from that of the alloted accommodation".
16. In the light of such suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged inspection report, it was incumbent upon the Estate Officer to record some independent evidence of the alleged inspection exercise. Even otherwise, without recording evidence of the alleged subletting, the Estate Officer could not have arrived at finding to that effect. It is the duty of the Estate Officer to independently examine the allegations instead of blindly concurring with the report of the alleged inspection team, that too without applying mind and without perusal of original report.
PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 13 of 21 pages
17. In the case of Union of India vs Sunil Dutt, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 314, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rejected the contention of Union of India that mere filing of the inspection report proves the contents thereof. It was also held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that mere presence of some family member or friend or relative of the government servant in the government accommodation at the time of inspection is not sufficient to draw inference of subletting of the government accommodation.
18. It is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution of India that every State action, in order to survive, must be phlegm to the vice of arbitrariness. This principle is basic to the rule of law, the system which governs us. Arbitrariness is the very negation of the rule of law. Satisfaction of this basic test in every State action is sine qua non to its validity and in this respect, the State cannot claim parity with a private individual even in the field of contract. Non arbitrariness being a necessary concomitant of the rule of law, it is imperative that all actions of every public functionary in whatever sphere, must be guided by reason and not humour, whim, caprice or personal predilections of the persons entrusted with the task on behalf of the State and exercise of all powers must be for public good instead of being an abuse of power.
PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 14 of 21 pages
19. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Limited vs Nusli Neville Wadia, AIR 2008 SC 876, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"24. Where an application is filed for eviction of an unauthorised occupant, it obligates the Estate Officer to apply his mind so as to enable him to form an opinion that the respondent is a person who has been in unauthorised occupation of the public premises and that he should be evicted. When a notice is issued in terms of Section 4 of the Act, the noticee may show cause. Section 5 of the Act postulates that an order of eviction must be passed only upon consideration of the show cause and any evidence produced by him in support of his case also upon giving him a personal hearing, if any, as provided under clause (ii) of Sub Section (2) of Section 4 of the Act.
....
33. The Estate Officer with a view to determine the lis between the parties must record summary of the evidence. Summary of the evidence and the documents shall also form part of the record of the proceedings.
34. Procedure laid down for recording evidence is stated in the Rules. The Estate Officer being a creature of the statute must comply the same. When a notice is issued, the occupant of the public premises would not only the entitled to show cause but would also be entitled to produce evidence in support of the cause shown.
....
47. It is axiomatic that when in support of his case the landlord intends to rely upon a document which is to be taken on record, it would be obligatory on the part of the Estate Officer to allow inspection thereof to the noticee. Denial of such inspection of documents PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 15 of 21 pages shall be violative of the principle of natural justice. It would run counter to the doctrine of fairness in the matter of determination of a lis between parties"
(emphasis supplied).
20. In the case of Ex Havaldar Kailash Singh vs Union of India, 106 (2003) DLT 660, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that grounds have to be categorically and clearly specified in the notice under Section 4 of the Act in order to enable the noticee to take all objections that are available to him under law and where grounds specified under Section 4 of the Act are different from the grounds mentioned in the eviction order, the eviction order cannot be sustained since it could not be said then that the noticee had reasonable opportunity of meeting the grounds. The very purpose of Section 4 is to make a socalled unauthorized occupant aware of the grounds on which he is sought to be evicted from the public premises. In the present case, the notice under Section 4 of the Act is totally silent and makes not even a whisper of the alleged illegal tenancy as a ground of eviction.
21. Admittedly, in the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was given copy of the alleged inspection report at the time of issuing notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act or ever subsequently. The alleged inspection report consisted of only two pages and four photographs, so it is also nobody's case that the record being PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 16 of 21 pages voluminous, only inspection thereof could be permitted to the appellant. Failure to provide a copy of the alleged inspection report to the appellant seriously prejudiced his right to effectively defend himself in the proceedings before the Estate Officer. Therefore, the proceedings before the Estate Officer got vitiated by the vice of abrogation of jus naturale and consequently, the impugned eviction order cannot be sustained.
22. There is another sound reason to suspect the alleged inspection report, which report is the solitary basis in support of allegation of subletting. Along with the reply to this appeal, respondents filed a copy of notice dated 29.08.2016 issued to the present appellant by the Assistant Director of Estate, whereby the appellant was called upon to show cause why the allotment of the said premises in his name be not canceled. In the said show cause notice, it was mentioned thus: "As a result of enquiries made, it has been reported that you have not been residing in government residence no. 900, Sector..... Block/Road 17, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi allotted to you and have completely/partially sublet the same to some unauthorised persons....". Had an inspection been truly carried out on 27.07.2016, the said notice dated 29.08.2016 would have specifically named Saurabh Ganguli and Rajiv Ranjan, and the same would have specifically alleged partial subletting in the rooms constructed on the rooftop instead of vague and general expressions "completely/ partially" and "some unauthorized persons". Such a notice not only deprived the appellant an opportunity of effectively defending PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 17 of 21 pages himself but also creates reasonable suspicion that no such inspection report was in existence till at least 29.08.2016 and the same was fabricated subsequently.
23. No doubt, the eviction proceedings before the Estate Officer do not require a lengthy hearing or lengthy testimony of witnesses. But in view of specific denial of the present appellant, the least the Estate Officer should have done was to summon and examine Saurabh Ganguli and/or any of the inspecting officers. What to say of examining the witnesses, the Estate Officer did not even peruse the original inspection report and even after perusal of photocopy thereof did not apply mind on the anomalies described above. This lends credence to the stand of the appellant that inspection report was fabricated at some subsequent point of time.
24. Coming to the judgment in the case of Barkha Ram (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for respondents, the factual matrix in the said case was quite distinct. In the said case, unlike the present case, genuineness of the inspection report was not in dispute. As mentioned above, in the present case, the appellant has specifically set up a case that the alleged inspection was only for the purposes of ascertaining if there was any anti social elements present in the area, in order to plug security loopholes prior to the Independence Day celebrations. Further, in the said case the documents produced before PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 18 of 21 pages the Estate Officer were held to have been rightly rejected because the same were got prepared subsequent to the inspection whereas in the present case, that is not so. In the present case, the driving license of Saurabh Ganguli admittedly reflected his residence to be of Bihar and the appellant also filed a declaration of Saurabh Ganguli to the effect that being a friend of the appellant he had stayed in the said premises for appearing in examination and returned to Bihar and those documents were not even rejected by the Estate Officer. Lastly, in the said case, it had been tried to project that the appellant of that case had only partially and not fully sublet the premises, which is not in the present case, in so far as the appellant has categorically denied even partial subletting.
25. Similarly, the judgment in the case of J.P. Yadav (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for respondents was on totally distinct facts in so far as in the said case the appellant had taken shifting stands as regards presence of two persons in the premises and the appellant of that case could not establish that the allotted accommodation was in his occupation and the documents produced by him had been got prepared subsequent to the commencement of proceedings.
26. In the case of Vijender Singh (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for respondent also, circumstances were totally distinct in the sense that in that case, the appellant neither responded to the notice PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 19 of 21 pages under Section 4 of the Act nor appeared before the Estate Officer despite opportunity, which led the Estate Officer to hold that the appellant had failed to prove that the allotment had been canceled on wrong grounds. In the said case also the person found in the alloted accommodation took a flipflop stand, stating first that he was son of the appellant and then that he was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 7000/ whereas he was found to be a clerk of some advocate in Karkardoom Courts and his wife also was an advocate, residing with him.
27. In the impugned eviction order, the Estate Officer acknowledged on the basis of material produced by the appellant that it stood established that the appellant was residing in the said premises. In the impugned order, the Estate Officer also did not reject the driving license and declaration of Saurabh Ganguli to the effect that he is a resident of Bihar and not of the said premises. Despite that, the Estate Officer mechanically held that the said premises were partially sublet. This finding of subletting, recorded without any reason is liable to be rejected.
28. Further, in the impugned order after discussing the above mentioned circumstances, the Estate Officer gave a finding to the effect that the two rooms with toilet on the rooftop of the said premises were constructed by the appellant. The only material available to sustain the PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 20 of 21 pages finding of unauthorized construction is the inspection report, but that establishes only to the extent of existence of unauthorizedly constructed rooms on the rooftop and not that the same were constructed by the appellant only. Estate officer ought to have looked for some evidence to rule out that the said rooms over the rooftop of the said premises were constructed by the person who was occupying the said premises prior to induction of the appellant.
29. Thence, the impugned eviction order is based on no reliable evidence and the same was passed in grave abrogation of jus naturale and also suffers vice of non application of mind, therefore the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
30. Consequently, the impugned eviction order dated 29.08.2017 passed against the appellant by the Estate Officer is set aside and the present appeal is allowed.
31. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Estate Officer along with original records of the Estate Office and appeal file be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court on
this 12th day of April, 2019 (GIRISH KATHPALIA)
District & Sessions Judge
Digitally signed
by GIRISH South East, Saket Courts
GIRISH KATHPALIA New Delhi 12.04.2019 (a)
KATHPALIA Date: 2019.04.15
15:47:55 +0530
PPA No. 37/2017 Arun Kumar Vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 21 of 21 pages