Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) BY this common judgment, the above seven writ petitions are being decided as common factual and legal issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions. WP (C) 176/2004 i. e. Ms Lily Thomas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors is treated as the lead petition in which arguments were addressed by Ms. Lily Thomas, advocate, who is the petitioner herself and also by the counsel for the petitioners in other writ petitions.

( 2 ) FOR facility of reference, the facts in detail in the lead case and the submissions made therein are being noticed. As regards other writ petitions, individual or peculiar facts as also particulars of the premises are noticed.

A. WP (C) 176/2004 (Ms. Lily Thomas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (i) petitioner, an Advocate by profession and resident of room no. D-148, sirmur Plot, New Maharashtra Sadan, K. G Marg, New Delhi, by this writ petition seeks quashing of notice dated 24th September, 2003, issued by the Estate Officer and deputy Special Commissioner, Maharashtra Sadan. Quashing of subsequent notice dated 13th October, 2003, is also sought. Petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent-State of Maharashtra and the Ministry of Urban Affairs to produce the title deed of the Sirmur Plot stated to be belonging to the State of Maharashtra. (ii ). Before taking up the various pleas and grounds sought to be urged by the petitioner in challenging the eviction proceedings, it may be noted that the Sirmur plot on which working girls hostel existed had been handed over by the Central government to the Government of Maharashtra on 10th May, 1999, pursuant to the decision taken by the Government of India, vide its letter dated 24th March, 1999. By way of background, it may be noted that the property originally had been allotted in 1920 to Sirmur Darbar by the then British Government. Subsequently, it was allotted to the Maharaja of Baroda in 1922. During the second world war, all vacant lands were requisitioned by the Government of India for construction of barracks. As per instrument of succession, all princely States merged into Union and Sirmur plot became State property. The Baroda State came under the Bombay State and upon re-organisation, the property came under State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, government of India vide its letters dated 29th December, 1998 and 24th March, 1999 admitted that the title of the property vested in the State of Maharashtra and possession of property was handed over to the State of Maharasthra on 10th May, 1999. (iii ). Notice in the writ petition was issued on 24th January, 2004, which was accepted in court itself by the respondents counsel who stated that petitioner had already been dispossessed following the order of eviction. The court directed status quo to be maintained as of date. Pleadings were completed. Petitioner during the proceedings sought leave to amend the writ petition to include challenge to the notification under Section 17 the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as P. P. Act) which empowered and authorised the State Government to appoint an Estate Officer. Petitioner was also permitted to file additional grounds on 19th February, 2004. Repeated adjournments were taken by the petitioner to conclude the submissions. Petitioner also filed synopsis of submissions. Despite availing of several opportunities and conclusion of oral arguments, petitioner was again given opportunity to make additional submissions. (iv ). Petitioners assail the proceedings under the P. P Act by the Estate Officer of the State Government as without jurisdiction and being non-est. Petitioner s case is that it was only the Central Government which was authorised to appoint an Estate officer under Section 3 of the P. P. Act. During the course of proceedings, notification and authorisation under Section 17 empowering the State Government to appoint an Estate Officer was produced. Petitioner thereupon assai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document