INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. There are 21 petitioners before this Court. The averments in all the writ petitions are almost identical. Accordingly, case of Shri Chand being Writ Petition No.8307/2016 is treated as the lead case.

2. The facts which emanates from the petitions disclose that petitioner no.1 was the member of petitioner no.2 (the Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd.) In 1949, petitioner no.2 was allotted agricultural land on either side of the river Yamuna being 13,344 bighas of land in Village Patparganj Shamspur, Jatwara Kalan South, Gaonwala, Mohammad Khan Wala, Jhilnmil Tahirpur South, Jhilmil Tahirpur North and Murgi Khana (hereinafter referred to as the said land) on lease hold basis for a period of five years. This lease was executed between the Delhi Improvement Trust (predecessor of the DDA) and petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.2 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 petitioner no.2 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 petitioner no.2 to clear all arrears of rent. Relevant would it be to note that this demand letter was issued to petitioner no.2 i.e. the Society and not to the individual cultivator (like the present petitioner). This demand was met with by petitioner no.2. Lease money was paid by petitioner no.2 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 individual cultivator. Proceedings under the Public Premises Act were held and eviction orders were passed by the Estate Officer. This was in 1991-92. These orders were challenged before the Appellate Body i.e. Court of learned Additional District Judge. This was on 02.4.1992. Matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer for a decision afresh. Further averments in the petition disclose that thereafter DDA again started eviction proceedings against the petitioner; this was in the year 2004. On 01.8.2007 an eviction order was passed qua the petitioner directing the petitioner to vacate the portion of the land which was under his occupation. This order was challenged before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge. At one stage the matter was again remanded back to the Estate Officer. The final orders were passed by the Estate Officer on 31.01.2014, 03.02.2014, 06.02.2014, 07.02.2014, 18.02.2014, 03.4.2014, 24.3.2014, 04.4.2014, 24.6.2014 respectively which were challenged before the District Judge under Section 9 of the said Act. The appeals were dismissed on 01.4.2014, 31.3.2014, 04.7.2014, 15.9.2014, 16.9.2014, 07.10.2014, 14.10.2014 respectively. These are the orders now impugned.

4. At the outset this Court notes that the present petitions have been filed on 06.5.2016 and 26.7.2016 respetively i.e. after a delay of almost or more than 1½ years respectively after 14.10.2014. The counsel in all these petitions is the same. These petitions were listed before this Court for the first time only on 03.10.2016; they were lying under objection at the filing counter and in all these five months no steps were taken to remove those objections.

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 th