Back
Evicts UNI from Prime Rafi Marg Land After 45 Years of Broken Promises
In a landmark ruling delivered on , the dismissed a by , upholding the Land and Development Office's (L&DO) cancellation of its allotment for 2,024 sq. m. of prime land at 9, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. Justice Sachin Datta directed authorities to immediately reclaim possession, ending UNI's decades-long occupation amid allegations of stalled construction and misuse. This decision, as reported in media coverage following the order, paves the way for eviction and underscores the perils of conditional public land grants.
From Allotment to Endless Stalemate
The saga began in when L&DO allotted 1.453 acres at Rafi Marg to UNI on behalf of itself and four other news media entities—, , , and —for a composite office complex. Terms were clear: construct within two years, pay premium and ground rent, execute a lease post-construction. UNI took possession in after a , paying for the existing superstructure.
Over decades, allotments evolved—revised in (1 acre shared with and Press Association), (built-up space shares via ), and (equal split with Press Council of India or PCI, totaling 5,289.52 sq. m., later adjusted). PCI emerged as a major co-allottee with 3,265.52 sq. m. Yet, no building rose. UNI cited financial woes, shifting co-allottees, and unclear agency roles ( to in 2012). PCI paid hefty fees but accused UNI of blocking progress, including running a canteen on its share. L&DO issued a in ; UNI's vague reply led to cancellation on .
Key questions: Was UNI a mere ? Did 45 years of inaction justify termination? Could claims of irrevocable rights via superstructure payment or boundary wall hold?
UNI's Defense: and External Blame
UNI argued its rights crystallized since possession, payments (Rs. 4,56,900 premium, Rs. 1,11,900 superstructure), and a registered Memorandum making it an under —citing bungalow "transfer" and permanent boundary wall. It blamed L&DO/PCI for unclear plans, land-use (still "bungalow"), no cost demands, and co-allottee flux. Post-, construction was /'s duty, not UNI's. Seeking sub-leasing wasn't misuse; financial stress was temporary. UNI claimed lessee-like perpetuity rights under .
L&DO and PCI Fire Back: in Perpetual Default
L&DO portrayed UNI as a "" per allotment letters—no lease executed, rights conditional on construction. All documents (-) mandated building within 2-24 months; UNI squatted 45 years, admitted financial incapacity (emails ), skipped meetings, sought commercial leases. Cancellation followed due process. PCI, holding 62% share and Rs. 5.15 crore paid, alleged UNI stalled via non-cooperation, unauthorized works (canteen, renovations defying status quo). As co-allottee, PCI sought unimpeded access.
Judicial Scalpel: Dissecting License, Not Lease
Justice Datta meticulously traced allotment history, rejecting UNI's irrevocability plea. All documents confirmed "" status—no until post-construction lease. failed: no property transfer; superstructure payment was security, not ownership—UNI obligated to demolish for composite build. inapplicable: boundary wall/superstructure not "acting upon license" (core duty: build complex); unauthorized works can't bootstrap rights. Purpose (construction) abandoned/impracticable per , justifying revocation.
Precedents fortified: Corporation of Calicut v. K. Sreenivasan (2002) affirmed licensees hold no interest, revocable post-term. Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain (1987) clarified Section 60 not exhaustive—contractual conditions prevail. Center for Applied Politics v. UOI () mirrored: five-decade non-build warranted cancellation, public land demands strict enforcement. Distinguished UNI's claims from easements protections, emphasizing .
Court's Razor-Sharp Observations
"The Petitioner has miserably failed to comply with the obligations cast upon it, under the various licenses/allotment letters issued in its favour... despite the passage of several decades, there has been a complete and abject failure to achieve the very purpose underlying the allotment/license."
"A licensee acquires no right or interest in the immoveable property and can occupy the premises only so long as the license subsists."
"Public land cannot be allowed to be held hostage by a defaulting licensee who has failed to fulfil the very object for which the licence was granted."
" ... cannot apply where the license is expressly conditional, performance-bound, and contractually revocable."
Final Verdict: Possession Reclaimed, Wake-Up Call Issued
The petition was dismissed:
"This Court finds no merit whatsoever... All interim orders stand vacated. The concerned official/s of the respondent/s are directed to immediately take possession."
Implications ripple: UNI faces eviction (post-CIRP resolution to
), PCI advances construction. Future allottees beware—L&DO must enforce timelines rigorously. Justice Datta cautioned public authorities:
"ensure that conditional allotments... are enforced with due diligence,"
preventing misuse of scarce Delhi land.
This ruling reinforces that time-honored licenses on public property yield to public purpose, not private inertia.
