( 1 ) THE petitioner claimed to be occupier/owner of property No. T-235, Id Gah Road, Qadam Sharif Estate, Delhi since 11. 3. 1986 on transfer of interest by Shri Jagat Ram in her favour. It is stated that Shri Jagat Ram was a displaced person from West Pakistan who occupied the property in question measuring 166 square yards and constructed a double storey building which was subsequently transferred to the petitioner.

( 2 ) IT may be noticed that no documents of title have been filed and the claim is based on the basis of payment of damages. In fact learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that there is no title to the property in question but that Shri Jagat Ram was paying damages earlier and thereafter the petitioner has been paying damages, some of the receipts of which have been filed on record. It is further stated that the property stand mutated in the name of the petitioner by the MCD though the same is for the purpose of house tax.

( 3 ) THE genus of the dispute started from the receipt of a show cause notice by the petitioner from respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 31. 7. 1987 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 29,882/- towards damages which was replied to by the petitioner. The petitioner disputed the quantum of damages and claimed that a uniform policy in respect of damages should be implemented qua all the occupants of the area in question.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 thereafter issued a notice dated 29. 2. 1988 under the Public Premises (Removal of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be evicted from the premises in question. The petitioner was represented before respondent No. 3, Estate Officer on 14. 3. 1988 through a duly constituted attorney being her husband. At a request being made the matter was adjourned for filing written objections to 28. 3. 1988 and again at request adjourned to 14. 4. 1988. It is claimed that the petitioner s husband wrongly noted the date as 19. 4. 1988 and when he was informed that there was no date of 19. 4. 1988 the petitioner claims to have received another letter dated 18. 4. 1988 on 28. 4. 1988 intimating the date of hearing as 2. 5. 1988 which was not attended to by anybody ostensibly on the ground that the petitioner was in the midst of ramzan rozas. It is further stated that there was continued lawyers strike. An eviction order was passed on 31. 5. 1988 under Section 5 (1) of the said Act. The petitioner moved an application on 15. 6. 1988 for review of the said order. The petitioner claims that she and her husband were informed that the eviction order had been recalled and placed on record a letter dated 27. 6. 88 being a call letter for proceedings fixed thereafter. However, on 2. 7. 1988, pending the said application, a demolition squad carried out the demolition of the second floor/barsati floor of the property in question and a part of the Ist floor. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of eviction and further demolition was stayed by the learned Additional District Judge. It is further claimed in para 16 of the writ petition that on inspection of the file of the Estate Officer the application of the petitioner dated 15. 6. 1988, the further call letter as also the order for setting aside the eviction order was not found in the file.

( 5 ) A reading of the order passed by the Estate Officer shows that the said Estate Officer has taken note of the absence of the petitioner despite opportunity being granted and the failure to file written objections. Evidence was adduced on behalf of the department which went unrebutted. The evidence show that a double storyed building was constructed unauthorisedly and that the property was being used for commercial purpose. The property in question was public premises being government land. A statement has been further made that the land is required by the respondent DDA f