Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 3875
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SH. LT. SADHU RAM THROUGH HIS WIFE - Petitioner
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9716/2016
Decided On : 21-10-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Khatri and Ms. Prabhkeen Kaur.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that lack of jurisdiction raised at a later stage without establishing prejudice is not a valid ground to delay the proceedings.
Headnote:
Public Premises Act - Quashing of Order - 1949 Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd. - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Suhas H. Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Its Estate Officer, (2014) 4 SCC 657 - Cantonment Board and Another Vs. Church of North India., - Shyam Lal Vs. Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass - Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani - [KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS: Public Premises Act, 1971; Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887; Transfer of Property Act, 1882] - The court discussed the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Estate Officer and the subsequent lack of jurisdiction regarding the Appellate Body. The court also considered the protection of the petitioner as a deemed tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and the legal provisions related to the occupation of public premises. The judgment of Suhas H. Pophale was heavily relied upon by the petitioner to argue that the Public Premises Act would be inapplicable due to the lease being entered into prior to 1958. However, the court found that the petitioner's plea on the lack of jurisdiction was a tactic to delay the proceedings and did not establish prejudice. The court dismissed the petition with costs quantified at Rs.10,000.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an order passed by the District Judge regarding the possession of agricultural land. The petitioner was a member of the Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd. and had been cultivating the land for more than 65 years. The DDA sought cancellation of the lease deed and issued eviction orders, which were challenged by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's delay in approaching the court and the lack of jurisdiction raised at a later stage were unjustifiable. The court dismissed the petition with costs.
Issues: The issues included the delay in approaching the court, lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Estate Officer and the Appellate Body, and the protection of the petitioner as a deemed tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of jurisdiction plea raised at a later stage was a tactic to delay the proceedings and did not establish prejudice. The court also found that the petitioner was holding government land without legal sanctity and dismissed the petition with costs.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
C.M. No.38847/2016 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9716/2016 & C.M. No.38848/2016
1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the District Judge qua 26 bighs 17 biswas of land bearing Khasra no.110 min. situated at Bela Estate, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property)
2. The facts which emanate from the petition disclose that petitioner was the member of the Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society). In 1949, the Society was allotted agricultural land on either side of the river Yamuna being 13,344 on an yearly rent of Rs.59,863/- by the DDA. The appellant being peasant/agriculturist and the members of the society was allotted the suit property by the Society and is stated to be cultivating the land for more than 65 years. A lease was executed between the Delhi Improvement Trust (predecessor of the DDA) and the Socierty in the year 1949. The socierty had thereafter allotted this land to its members for cultivation. The lease was extended in 1956 and thereafter in 1961. The DDA sought cancellation of the lease deed (qua certain bighas of land on 06.10.1967 and 31.7.1967 respectively) qua the Society requiring them to hand over the possession of the land. On 30.4.1973 Resolution No.6 was passed by the DDA proposing to execute the lease deed with the individual cultivators. Demand letter was issued to the Socierty to clear all arrears of rent. Relevant would it be to note that this demand letter was issued to Society and not to the individual cultivator (like the present petitioner). This demand was met with by the Socierty. Lease money was paid by the Society to the DDA which amount was accepted by the DDA without any reservation.
3. Further averments in the petition disclose that thereafter notices under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) were issued by the Estate Officer of the DDA to the cultivator. Proceedings under the Public Premises Act were held and eviction orders were passed by the Estate Officer. This was on 24.3.2014. This order was challenged before the Appellate Body i.e. Court of learned District Judge. This was on 19.4.2014. The appeal was dismissed on 07.10.2014. This is the order now impugned.
4. At the outset this Court notes that the present petition has been filed on 17.10.2016 i.e. after a delay of almost or more than 1½ years respectively after 07.10.2014.
5. On a query put to the learned counsel for petitioner on this score he has no answer. His submission is that connected writ petitions were listed before another Bench of this Court and although some of those petitions have been dismissed by the Division Bench yet another Division Bench of this Court is seized of some of these petitions which are yet pending before it and those orders were being awaited.
6. This Court is not particularly happy with this explanation tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A person aggrieved by an order has to approach the Court to get his grievance addressed within a particular time frame. Although there is no specific period of limitation to prefer a writ petition against the order passed on 07.10.2014 yet this unjustifiable delay in approaching this Court (more than two years) for which again there appears to be no explanation; the obvious presumption being that the petitioner probably have no grievance as had they been aggrieved they would have rushed to the Court much earlier. This Court notes this delay in approaching this Court. However, since arguments have been addressed on merits this Court would not like to dismiss the petitions on the ground of laches.
7. On advance notice, counsel for the DDA has put in appearance and has assisted this Court.
8. Record shows that a bunch of connected petitions have been disposed of by one Division B
