Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 1933
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNIL GAUR, J.
SHARMA MONTESSORI SCHOOL & ORIENTAL COLLEGE SOCIETY - Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.3210/2000
Decided On : September 24, 2012
Mr. B. Kishan, Advocate
Mr. Sachin Datta, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse possession to be adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in denial of the title of the true owner. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the applicability of the Public Premises Act and the lack of prejudice suffered by the petitioner in terms of fair hearing and legitimate possession over the subject site.
Headnote:
Public Premises - Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants - Public Premises Act, 1971 - Section 116 of the Evidence Act, Smt. Ram Kanta Jain v. M.S. Jain and others AIR 1999 Delhi 281, W.P.(C) 2204/2006 M/s. Ashoka Builders & Promoters v. UOI & ors., Vikas Jain v. UOI & ors., 2006 V AD (Delhi) 479, Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & ors. v. UOI & ors. AIR 1986 SC 872, Sudhir Goel v. MCD & ors., 2004 (75) DRJ 195, M/s. Wire-Netting Stores & Anr. v. DDA & ors., 1969 (3) SCC 415, New India Assurance Co. v. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr., I (2008) SLT 442, Minoo Farmroze Balsara v. UOI, AIR 1992 Bom 375, P.S. Gupta v. NDMC, 1996 RLR 431
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an eviction order and consequential relief of quashing respondents' communication demanding damages for unauthorized use of the subject site. The respondents claimed that the petitioner did not comply with the terms of allotment and had not paid the rent, resulting in unauthorized occupation of the subject site.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eviction order was valid, rejected the plea of adverse possession, and upheld the applicability of the Public Premises Act. The court also dismissed the petition with no orders as to costs.
Issues: The issues included the compliance with the terms of allotment, unauthorized occupation, applicability of the Public Premises Act, and the plea of adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in denial of the title of the true owner to constitute adverse possession. The court also emphasized the applicability of the Public Premises Act and the lack of prejudice suffered by the petitioner in terms of fair hearing and legitimate possession over the subject site.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the eviction order and consequential relief was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Key Points: - The petitioner sought to quash an eviction order and a demand for damages regarding a 1616 sq. yard site on Lodhi Road [11000364080001]. - The respondent initially granted a temporary one-year allotment in 1956, which was later regularized for specific periods but not renewed due to the petitioner's failure to comply with terms and pay rent [11000364080001][11000364080002]. - The court held that the Public Premises Act is a special Act and prevails over the Limitation Act, meaning there is no limitation period for initiating eviction proceedings [11000364080009][11000364080010]. - The court rejected the plea of adverse possession, ruling that a lessee or licensee cannot claim adverse possession against the true owner after their allotment has lapsed [11000364080012]. - The court determined that the subject site, consisting of land and a superstructure, falls within the definition of "premises" under the Public Premises Act [11000364080014]. - The court dismissed the petition, finding no palpable error in the eviction order or the demand for damages [11000364080016].
What is the applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, to the subject site?
How does the Limitation Act apply to eviction proceedings and the recovery of damages under the Public Premises Act?
Can a former lessee or licensee claim adverse possession over public premises after the expiration of their allotment?
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of Estate Officers order of 31st January, 2000 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 directing eviction of petitioner from Governments Lodhi Road school site area of 1616 sq. yards (henceforth referred to as subject site/premises), which stands affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order of 8th April, 2000. Consequential relief of quashing respondents communication of 17th May, 2000 demanding damages for unauthorized use of the subject site and restoration of the subject site is also sought by petitioner in this writ petition.
2. The first respondent vide its communication of 14th July, 1956 (Annexure R-1 to the counter) had made temporary allotment of the subject site for a period of one year only with a rider that petitioner-society should apply for a permanent allotment of site immediately to the Director of Education. In this context, it would be relevant to note that respondent vide its communication of 5th July, 1963 (Annexure R-2 to the counter) had regularized unauthorized occupation of the Government land i.e. the subject site upto 30th June, 1963 upon payment of ground rent, charges for execution of temporary lease etc. Respondent vide its communication of 10th August, 1965 (Annexure R-3 to the counter) had offered to regularize the unauthorized occupation of petitioner on the Government land i.e. the subject site upto 14th July, 1965 upon terms and conditions, which were not complied with by petitioner.
3. It is the case of respondents that petitioner did not comply with the terms of allotment and had not paid the rent and so no Lease Agreement was executed and petitioners unauthorised occupation on the Government land i.e. the subject site continued from July, 1963 till July, 1999, when proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, were initiated, which resulted in passing of eviction order, wherein respondents demand of damages to the tune of 28,57,208/- is also affirmed, while holding that the subject site forms part of Government Land which was acquired vide Governments Notification of 21st December, 1911 and is under the control of Ministry of Urban Development.
4. Impugned order negates the challenge to eviction order by rejecting petitioners plea of adverse possession over the subject site while relying upon Section 116 of the Evidence Act and a decision of this Court in Smt. Ram Kanta Jain v. M.S. Jain and others AIR 1999 Delhi 281.
5. The impugned order is assailed by learned counsel for petitioner on the ground of non-applicability of provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 on specious plea of subject site not falling within the ambit of “public premises” as defined in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Public Premises Act). To contend so, reliance was placed upon decisions in W.P.(C) 2204/2006 M/s. Ashoka Builders & Promoters v. UOI & ors. rendered on 9th July, 2012; Vikas Jain v. UOI & ors., 2006 V AD (Delhi) 479 and Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & ors. v. UOI & ors. AIR 1986 SC 872.
6. To contend that the scheme of Public Premises Act mandates affording of reasonable opportunity of hearing, recording of evidence and that temporary allotment is for a period of 30 days and that lease on year to year basis has be treated as permanent, learned counsel for petitioner had relied upon decisions reported in Sudhir Goel v. MCD & ors., 2004 (75) DRJ 195; M/s. Wire-Netting Stores & Anr. v. DDA & ors., 1969 (3) SCC 415; New India Assurance Co. v. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr., I (2008) SLT 442; Minoo Farmroze Balsara v. UOI, AIR 1992 Bom 375 and P.S. Gupta v. NDMC, 1996 RLR 431.
7. To further contend that respondent had lost its control over the subject site by efflux of time, reliance was placed by petitioners counsel upon decisions in Navrattanmal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1704;
