Back
1996 Supreme(Del) 293
High Court Of Delhi
LADY IRWIN COLLEGE SOCIETY - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 03/14/1996
The P. P. Act is a special law for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises and the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1952 is not applicable for such eviction.
Headnote:
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 2 (E), 5 (1) - REQUISITIONING AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT, 1952 - SECTION 6 (1-A), 6 (2) - REQUISITIONING AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY RULES, 1953 - RULE 7 - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 4 - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - SPECIAL ACT VS. GENERAL ACT - APPLICABILITY OF P. P. ACT FOR EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS FROM PUBLIC PREMISES - JURISDICTION OF ESTATE OFFICER UNDER P. P. ACT - PROCEDURE FOR EVICTION UNDER P. P. ACT VS. ACT OF 1952 - EFFECT OF NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Lady Irwin College Society, challenged the orders of the Estate Officer and Appellate Authority directing them to vacate the requisitioned property, Bungalow No. 5, Sikandra Road, New Delhi, which was occupied by the petitioner since 1947. The petitioner argued that the P. P. Act was not applicable as the property ceased to be public premises after the expiry of 17 years from the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1970 and that eviction could only be effected under the Act of 1952.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the P. P. Act was applicable as the property continued to be public premises despite the expiry of the requisition period and that the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to pass the eviction order under section 5 (1) of the P. P. Act. The court also held that the P. P. Act was a special law for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises and that the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1952 was not applicable.
Issues: 1. Whether the P. P. Act was applicable to the property in question after the expiry of the requisition period. 2. Whether the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to pass the eviction order under the P. P. Act. 3. Whether the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1952 was applicable for eviction of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "public premises" under section 2 (e) of the P. P. Act includes premises requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government. The fact that the premises are required to be released after the expiry of the specified period of time does not mean that the property would cease to be a public premises. 2. The P. P. Act is a special law dealing with the specific problem of taking speedy action against unauthorized occupants of public premises. The process of eviction from such property must not be a long drawn process. 3. The procedure prescribed under the Act of 1952 is not applicable for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. The P. P. Act provides a special procedure for eviction of such occupants.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed in limine.
( 1 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the order of the Estate Officer dated August 22, 1990, passed under section 5 (1} of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the P. P. Act) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated February 14,1996, passed under section 9 of the P. P. Act. The facts leading to the writ petition, briefly stated, are as follows
( 2 ) ON August 21, 1947, Bungalow No. 5, Sikandra Road, New Delhi, was requisitioned under the provisions of section 3 of the Delhi Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Ordinance, 1947. After requisition of the property the same was handed over to the petitioner, namely, Lady Irwin College Society, for its use. Subsequently, the Delhi Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Ordinance, 1947, was superseded by Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short the Act of 1952 ), but the requisition made under the Ordinance of 1947 continued under the provisions of section 24 (2) of the Act of 1952. However, under section 6 (1-A) of the Act of 1952, the Central Government is required to release from requisition any property requisitioned or deemed to be requisitioned under this Act before the commencement of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property (Amendment) Act, 1970, (for short the Amendment Act of 1970) (which came into effect from March 11,1970), on or before the expiry of a period of seventeen years from the date of such commencement. This means that the property which had been requisitioned before the Amendment Act of 1970 was required to be released on or before March 10, 1987.
( 3 ) ON February 11, 1988, one of the owners of the property Smt. Kant Kumari filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 599/88, wherein it was inter alia prayed that the vacant physical possession of the property should be handed over to the co-owners. In this writ petition the Union of India and the petitioner were arrayed as respondents. On July 8,1991, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition holding that the period of requisition having come to an end the Central Government was required to release the property in favour of the co-owners. It further directed respondents 1 to 3 therein (i. e. , Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply; Estate Officer and the Deputy Director of Estates.) and respondent No. 6 (Lady Irwin College) to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the property to Smt. Kant Kumari and respondents 4 and 5 (Smt. Prem Kumari and Smt. Madan Lata, widows of two sons of Smt. Kant Kumari) on or before December 31, 1991. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking extension of time for vacating the premises. On April 29,1992, the Division Bench, after noticing the submission of the petitioner that the premises were occupied by 35 mentally retarded children and teachers, and the statement of Mr. Bhuchhar, counsel for the petitioner, made on a previous date before the Court that the petitioner "needed not more than four months time to make alternative arrangements", rejected the request and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises to Smt. Kant Kumari and other co- owners within fifteen days of the order.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner challenged both the orders of this Court dated July 8, 1991, and April 29,1992, before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition. On May 28,1992, the Supreme Court while disposing of the S. L. P. only extended the time for complying with the orders of the High Court by the end of the year 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application for seeking further extension of time to vacate the premises but the same was rejected by the Supreme Court on February 20, 1995.
( 5 ) AT this stage a reference may be made to the orders impugned in the writ petitions. On August 22, 1990, the Estate Officer passed an order under section 5 of the P. P. Act
