The court emphasized the need to balance public interest and private rights in exercising discretionary remedies, and considered the provisions of the Government Grants Act in determining the appellant's rights.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This intra Court appeal impugns the judgment dated 08.11.2011 of a Single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P.(C) No.4694/2011 preferred by the appellant herein. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant to restrain the respondent Railways from carrying out any demolition on and from dispossessing the appellant from premises at 13 KM, Rohtak Road, Shakur Basti, Delhi -110 056 and impugning the notice dated 27.12.2010 issued by the respondent Railways to the appellant. The writ petition was filed on 07.07.2011 when the action of demolition and dispossession was already underway.

2. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on 07.07.2011 itself, when the counsel for the respondent Railways appearing on advance notice stated that the writ petition had become infructuous as the respondent Railways had taken complete possession of the premises in question on 06.07.2011 and had also handed over the site for construction of coaching terminal. The said statement of the respondent Railways was controverted by the appellant and in view of the conflicting stands with regard to possession, status quo was directed to be maintained.

3. The facts, not in dispute are, that the respondent Railways had vide indentures dated 15.03.1975 and 03.01.1978 granted the land aforesaid to the appellant; the appellant, with the consent of the respondent Railways, had raised construction comprising of an administrative block and three huge petroleum steel storage tanks on the said land; the respondent Railways in or about the year 1988 terminated the rights of the appellant over the said land and directed the appellant to vacate the same and initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971; the Estate Officer vide order dated 28.03.1990 dismissed the said proceedings; the respondent Railways preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge but which was also dismissed on 18.12.2007; the respondent Railways preferred W.P.(C) No. 8071/2008 against the order of the learned Additional District Judge but the said writ petition was also dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2010. Since the appellant before us relies on the said order, it is deemed apposite to set out the same herein below:

“3. As far as the writ petition is concerned, the Addl. District Judge has inter alia held that the appeal did not lie against the order of dismissal of application under Sections 4 and 7 of the PP Act by the Estate officer. He has further upheld the findings of the Estate Officer of the License of the respondent having not been terminated in accordance with law and the respondent being accordingly not an unauthorized occupant.

4. It is felt that no purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending. The findings of the Estate Officer affirmed by the Addl. District Judge in appeal are findings of fact. The petitioner rather than wasting time in this petition would well advised to initiate fresh proceedings for ejectment and for recovery of damages in accordance with law and which right of the petitioner is not controverted by the respondent also. The counsel for the respondent however states that the petitioner for being entitled to initiate fresh proceedings will have to terminate the license of the respondent in accordance with law.

5. The present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings against the respondent.”

4. It is further not in dispute that the respondent Railways thereafter served the notice dated 27.12.2010 again purporting to terminate the Deeds dated 15.03.1975 and 03.01.1978 and demanded vacant and peaceful possession of the land by 31.03.2011.

5. It is significant to record at this stage that the appellant though admits the receipt of the notice dated 27.12.2010 but neither controverted the contents of the same nor challenged the same in any proceedings. It was in pursuance to the said termination that the respondent Railwa