IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Yashwant Varma, J.
Vinod Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Estate Officer, Delhi Development Authority - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3282 of 2021 and CM Appl. 10026 of 2021
Decided On : 13-12-2021
Public Premises - Challenge to order under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - [W.P.(C) 3282/2021, CM APPL.10026/2021 (stay) & CM APPL. 27716/2021 (Impleadment)] - The petitioner challenges the validity of an order dated 6th May, 2015 passed by the Estate Officer in the course of proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Additionally, challenge is laid to an order dated 15th July, 2020 passed by the District Judge on the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner herein and the same has affirmed the order of eviction as passed by the Estate Officer. The Court found that the mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises. The Court also rejected the argument based on Article 14 of the Constitution, stating that Article 14 neither envisages nor sanctions equality in illegality. The Court further held that the proceedings were not barred by limitation as the Public Premises Act being a special Act would prevail upon the Limitation Act. The Court also rejected the submission with respect to a violation of the principles of natural justice and the action of the Estate Officer proceeding ex parte, stating that adequate or sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the validity of an order dated 6th May, 2015 passed by the Estate Officer in the course of proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Additionally, challenge is laid to an order dated 15th July, 2020 passed by the District Judge on the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner herein and the same has affirmed the order of eviction as passed by the Estate Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises. The Court also rejected the argument based on Article 14 of the Constitution, stating that Article 14 neither envisages nor sanctions equality in illegality. The Court further held that the proceedings were not barred by limitation as the Public Premises Act being a special Act would prevail upon the Limitation Act. The Court also rejected the submission with respect to a violation of the principles of natural justice and the action of the Estate Officer proceeding ex parte, stating that adequate or sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues raised in the case included the validity of the orders passed by the Estate Officer and the District Judge, the application of Article 14 of the Constitution, the limitation of proceedings under the Public Premises Act, and the violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises. Article 14 neither envisages nor sanctions equality in illegality. The Public Premises Act being a special Act would prevail upon the Limitation Act. Adequate or sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Yashwant Varma, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 10027/2021 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3282/2021, CM APPL.10026/2021 (stay) & CM APPL. 27716/2021 (Impleadment)
1. The petitioner challenges the validity of an order dated 6th May, 2015 passed by the Estate Officer in the course of proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 19711 . Additionally, challenge is laid to an order dated 15th July, 2020 passed by the District Judge on the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner herein and the same has affirmed the order of eviction as passed by the Estate Officer.
2. It becomes relevant to note that no challenge as such was raised to the recordal of the background facts in the order passed by the District Judge. That order records that the father of the petitioner was originally allotted premises in Block J, falling in B.K. Dutt Colony. The aforesaid allotment is stated to have been made by the Department of Rehabilitation. In 1984, upon a review of the unutilized land held by the Department under its administration and upon it being recognized that the area had become urbanized, parts thereof were transferred to the Delhi Development Authority2 . On the record is a communication of 5th April, 1984 in terms of which possession of the unutilized land was transferred by the Department to the DDA. Appended to that communication is an Annexure setting forth the details of the land and developed plots which constituted a part of the transfer being made. At serial number 7, the Department set forth the details of the land falling by the side of the old wall of the graveyard in Block J of B.K. Dutt Colony. The total area of this piece of land was described to be 539 sq. yards and carried a further remark of it having been encroached upon. Admittedly the land which forms the subject matter of the present proceedings was comprised in the aforesaid piece of land.
3. Undisputedly the only allotment which was officially made in favour of the father of the petitioner was in Block J of the colony in question. The site plan which was annexed along with the communication of 5th April 1984 evidenced encroachments having been made adjacent to the old boundary wall and graveyard. Upon the factum of the aforesaid encroachment coming to light, the father of the petitioner is stated to have been placed on notice. Upon initiation of those proceedings, he submitted an affidavit dated 13th May, 1996 stating therein that a plot of land admeasuring 269 sq. mts. had been in his occupation since 1963 and that he was willing to pay damages and other charges as may be leviable and was also willing to vacate the same as and when required by the DDA. Upon submission of that affidavit, a verification exercise was undertaken by the Department which drew up a note stating that the father of the petitioner had in fact encroached upon 139 sq. yards of land. It was accordingly found that he would be liable to pay damages for the period 5th April, 1984 to 31st March, 1996. The note further provided that proceedings for eviction may also be initiated.
4. Upon quantification of damages, the father of the petitioner by his letter dated 27th May, 1988 accepted the liability to pay the same. He further submitted that since he was in advanced years of his life, his son, the petitioner herein, may be permitted to liquidate the aforesaid liability. The amount of damages as assessed was ultimately paid in instalments in June 1996, April 1997 and ultimately in February 2012. It is pertinent to note that the father of the petitioner passed away during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings on 30th May, 2005.
5. Thereafter and pursuant to the directions issued by the Court in independent proceedings, a demolition exercise for removal of unauthorised encroachments is stated to have been initiated. In the course of those proceedings, a notice of 27th March, 2015 came to b
Mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises.
The assessment of damages for unauthorized property use persists despite prior communications, reaffirmed by policy provisions, with petitioners failing to establish rights for commercial utilization....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of payments made by occupants, coupled with evidence of regularization or lawful occupation, determines their status as authoriz....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the Principles of Natural Justice in quasi-judicial proceedings, the lack of evidence of subletting of the actual governm....
Unauthorised occupation of public land, rejection of alternative allotment under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme, and lack of right, title, or interest over the land in question.
The court emphasized the finality of the petitioner's status as an unauthorized occupant and upheld the criteria for assessment of damages laid down by NDMC.
The eviction under the Public Premises Act was upheld as lawful, with sufficient notice and adherence to due process, and claims of bias against the Estate Officer were rejected.
The necessity for eviction must be justified in addition to establishing unauthorized occupation under the Public Premises Act, as reaffirmed by prior judicial interpretations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.