Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar & Others vs . Estate Officer, Dda on 2 February, 2019
PPA/03/15
Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. Estate Officer, DDA
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PPA/03/15
CNR No.DLKA040000722014
In the matter of;
1. Ashok Kumar
2. Krishan Lal
3. Madan Lal
All Sons of Late Shri Ram Swaroop
R/o A483, 1st Pusta, Kaithwara,
Delhi110053 ..... Appellants
Versus
Estate Officer
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 30092014
Reserved for order on : 19012019
Order announced on : 02022019
ORDER
1. This is an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises Page No. 1 /9 PPA/03/15 Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. Estate Officer, DDA (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 preferred against the order dt.12092014 passed by the Court of Shri O.P. Madan, Estate OfficerII, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi in File No.EV/TN2(63)2011/515/Damage/83/CH(S)1217 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 appellants herein for vacating the land measuring 6 Bigha & 17 ½ Biswa in Khasra No.16 Min situated in Chiragah (S) Delhi occupied by them.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for DDA and meticulously gone through the record.
3. Learned counsel for appellants 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. Page No. 2 /9
PPA/03/15 Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. Estate Officer, DDA
5. In appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned order on one of the points that order has been passed in a most mechanical manner and that the renewal of lease was still under consideration. Moreover, the society had deposited some amount with the DDA.
6. The appellants have also taken a stand that they are poor farmers and by hard labour and efforts, they had developed the barren land for agriculture purposes and earning their livelihood from the same. They have also taken a stand that they are a regular member of Delhi Peasant Cooperative Multipurpose Society Ltd. and holding land measuring 6 Bigha 17 ½ Biswa out of the land bearing Khasra No.16 Min situated at Chiragah (S) Delhi and paying the lagan/rent to the society and as such, they are not unauthorized occupants of the land. They have 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.
Page No. 3 /9
PPA/03/15 Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. Estate Officer, DDA
7. In order to answer the aforesaid stands taken by the appellants, 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.
8. 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 Page No. 4 /9 PPA/03/15 Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. Estate Officer, DDA 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.
9. 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 appellants have got no right, title and interest in the land in question and they have become unauthorized occupants of the land in question. Since they are in unauthorized occupation of the land, they are liable to be evicted from the land in question. It is pointed out that any money 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.
10. 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 Page No. 5 /9 PPA/03/15 Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. Estate Officer, DDA 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.
11. 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 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 Page No. 6 /9 PPA/03/15 Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. Estate Officer, DDA occupying the government land.
12. 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.
13. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for appellants has submitted that appellants are in possession of the land in question and they cannot be evicted by the DDA without due process of law. Learned counsel for appellants has further submitted that in support of their averments, DDA has not placed on record any document.
14. As regards the contention raised by learned counsel for appellants that appellants are in possession of land in question and they cannot be evicted by the DDA without due process of law. It is not in dispute that the appellants are in possession of the land in Page No. 7 /9 PPA/03/15 Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. Estate Officer, DDA question. However, they are in unauthorized possession of the land in question especially keeping in view the fact that lease of the land already stands determined by the DDA and DDA has followed the due process of law that is why since 1967, they are waiting to reclaim the land vested in it and they have approached the Court of Law seeking dispossession of appellants.
15. As regards the contention of not filing any document on record by the DDA, it is pointed out all the essential documents are attached with the file of the Estate OfficerII which is already tagged with this appeal file.
16. Therefore, in the present case, the appellants are unauthorized occupants 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.
17. The appellants have also failed to show if they had become tenant under the society. The appellants have also failed to Page No. 8 /9 PPA/03/15 Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. Estate Officer, DDA show if the order passed by the Estate OfficerII is without any jurisdiction and authority.
18. No other point has been raised in this appeal. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, same is accordingly dismissed.
19. The appellants are directed to vacate the land under their 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.
20. Trial Court Record along with copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.
21. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
ON 02nd FEBRUARY, 2019 JAGOTRA
DEEPAK Location:
KARKARDOOMA
JAGOTRA COURTS, DELHI
Date:
2019.02.02
16:08:01 +0530
(DEEPAK JAGOTRA)
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Page No. 9 /9