Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Najmi Waziri, J.
Jai Gopal Bedi - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4426 of 2020, 4427 of 2020, 4428 of 2020, 4429 of 2020, 4436 of 2020, 4438 of 2020
Decided On : 14-09-2020
Public Premises - Eviction Proceedings - Public Premises Act, 1971 - Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Adverse Possession - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Gazette notification dated 02.06.1970 - Transfer to DDA for Rs.30 crores vide letter dated 02.09.1982 - Encroachment on the land - Continuous permissive user - Adverse possession - Right, title and interest - Unauthorised occupation - Possession of the property - Landlord's rights - Validity of government documents - Procedure adopted by the Estate Officer - Eviction order
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act, 1971, which was upheld by the learned District Judge. The petitioners claimed a right in the property as tenants of one Narain Singh, and subsequently, of his legal heirs. The DDA initiated eviction proceedings under the PP Act, claiming that the land belonged to them and the petitioners were unauthorised occupants. The petitioners contended that the land did not vest with the DDA due to the absence of a notification under Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The DDA argued that the land was transferred to them by the Government of India for Rs.30 crores and that the petitioners were encroachers. The Court noted that the landlord of the property never appeared, and the petitioners' claim of adverse possession was untenable. The Court found no error in the procedure adopted by the Estate Officer and dismissed the petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners failed to establish any right in the property to supersede the claim of their landlord. The eviction order was reasoned, and the appellate/impugned order extensively addressed each contention raised by the petitioners. The petitions were dismissed as without merit.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the eviction order under the Public Premises Act, 1971, the claim of the petitioners as tenants, the rights of the DDA over the land, and the applicability of adverse possession and limitation in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners' claim of adverse possession was untenable as they did not challenge the government documents which the landlord himself had not challenged. The Court found no error in the procedure adopted by the Estate Officer and dismissed the petitions.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed as without merit, and the eviction order was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Najmi Waziri, J. - W.P. (C) 4426/2020, CM APPLs. 15937/2020 & 18511/2020
W.P. (C) 4427/2020, CM APPLs. 15941/2020 & 18513/2020
W.P. (C) 4428/2020, CM APPLs. 15945/2020 & 18514/2020
W.P. (C) 4429/2020, CM APPLs. 15950/2020 & 18519/2020
W.P. (C) 4436/2020, CM APPLs. 15973/2020 & 18510/2020
W.P. (C) 4438/2020, CM APPLs. 15980/2020 & 18512/2020
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. The petitioners impugn the common order dated 03.07.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (West), Delhi in PPA Nos. 13/2016, 14/2016, 15/2016, 16/2016, 17/2016 and 18/2016, under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (''the PP Act''). The said order upheld the eviction order dated 22.8.2016, passed by the Estate Officer, under Section 5(1) of the PP Act.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the impugned order is replete with errors, inasmuch as:
(i) The Delhi Development Authority (''DDA'') never proved that it was the owner of the land.
(ii) The DDA knew from 1984 itself that the petitioners were in possession of the land, and therefore, its cause for seeking eviction in the year 2016 is dubious. Furthermore, if the first notice was issued in the year 1984 and if the DDA knew all along that the petitioners were in possession of the land, they ought to have taken immediate action for eviction, as the petitioners were occupying the property despite the full knowledge of the DDA.
(iii) The land does not vest with the DDA because there was no notification under Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (''the DDA Act'').
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners emphasises that the DDA permitted the petitioners to continue in possession of the land from 1984 onwards, therefore impliedly it condoned their possession: in a way viewing them as ''authorised'' occupants. Therefore, now after 37 years to suddenly call them unauthorised occupants would need an adjudication of rights accrued in favour of the petitioners by ''continuous permissive user'' beyond 30 years. In the documents presented before the Estate Officer, the petitioners have been shown as encroachers on DDAs land, so DDA knew full well that they were ''encroachers'', why did it allow them to stay on for 37 years and to build large permanent buildings, which have been abodes for many families for over two generations? why did the DDA not take any action to any evict them, right from the beginning of the alleged encroachment? Not having done so within the prescribed period of eviction of unauthorised occupants, bars the present action by limitation. The petitioners rely upon the dicta of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v Manjit Kaur and Ors,2019 SCCOnlineSC 975 and argues that eviction proceedings after the passage of 32 years are clearly barred by limitation. In the said judgment, it has been held, inter alia, as under:
"...1. The question of law involved in the present matters is quite significant. Whether a person claiming the title by virtue of adverse possession can maintain a suit under Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act") for declaration of title and for a permanent injunction seeking the protection of his possession thereby restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession or for restoration of possession in case of illegal dispossession by a defendant whose title has been extinguished by virtue of the plaintiff remaining in the adverse possession or in case of dispossession by some other person? In other words, whether Article 65 of the Act only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield as a defendant and such a plea cannot be used as a sword by a plaintiff to protect the possession of immovable property or to recover it in case of dispossession. Whether he is remediless in such a case? In case a person has perfected his title based on adverse possession and property is sold by the owner after the e
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
