The decision to regularise unauthorized occupation must be based on proper criteria, and prolonged illegal occupation cannot be a ground for protection.

( 1 ) IT is a classic case where the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are fighting over a tenement over which both did not have any right. It is the inaction and inability of respondent No. 1 to take remedial measures against the unauthorised occupation of the tenement which has given rise to the present dispute.

( 2 ) THE petitioner claims that sht was living in a tenement built in village tigari,jj. Colony and in 1978 floods, the tenement was destroyed. A list of persons whose tenements were, so destroyed was prepared in January, 1980 containing the names of 501 such victims and the name of the petitioner figured in the said list at serial No. 371 against Jhuggi No. C-129 destroyed in the floods.

( 3 ) IT is stated that a decision was taken to rehabilitate the uprooted persons including the petitioners in Trilokpuri The petitioner was already in occupation of tenement No. 35/10 and waited for regularisation. The petitioner also deposited the amounts as required within time. The petitioner made the request vide letter dated 13. 4. 1981 and respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 24. 6. 1982 asked the petitioner to furnish her ration card and income certificate which was replied to by the petitioner on 20. 7. 82. It is stated that the petitioner had complied with all the conditions required by respondent No. l.

( 4 ) IN July, 1982 the petitioner claims that she went out of Delhi after locking the tenement and in her absence respondent No. 2 broke open her tenement and occupied the same. It is stated that respondent No. 2 did not belong to the list of 501 victims uprooted in the flood. It is further stated that the petitioner made various representations against the unauthorised occupation and even eviction proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 2 which resulted in an order dated 14. 8. 87 being passed by ihe Estate Officer. The Estate Officer came to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 was in unauthorised occupation and was liable to be evicted under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 5 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that suddenly a decision, was taken to regularise the tenement in favour of respondent No. 2 and the letter dated 22. 4. 88 was issued to the petitioner stating so. The petitioner thus filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the decision of respondent No. 1 allotting the tenement in favour of respondent No. 2 and for giving the possession of the same to the petitioner.

( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 DDA in its counter affidavit has stated that though some Jhuggies were destroyed in the floods in river Yamuna in 1978 no allotment had been made to any persons. However, the tenements constructed in Trilokpuri for economically weaker sections of the society were illegally and unauthorisedly occupied by some persons claiming themselves to be the flood victims and they failed to vacate the quarters. A policy decision was taken vide resolution No. 97 dated 11. 8. 80 to regularise the occupation of the houses by the persons occupying (the same subject to payment of necessary dues. The deposit made by the petitioner is admitted though it is stated that the petitioner did not furnish the documents and thus the allotment could not be regularised. The incident of respondent No. 2 breaking open the lock and occupying the tenement is denied for want of knowledge by respondent no. l, It is admitted that the letter dated 24. 6. 87 was issued asking the petitioner to comply with certain conditions.

( 7 ) IN so far as the regularisation of the occupation of respondent No. 2 is concerned, respondent No. 1 has stated that in January, 1986 another general survey was conducted and in terms of resolution No. 158 dated 23. 9. 1983/19. 11. 83 it was decided to regularise the occupation of such unauthorised occupants who had been residing before 30,9. 1983. In this survey respondent No. 2 was found in occupation of the tenement and the