Back
MINI PUSHKARNA
Moora Mal Lekh Raj – Appellant
Versus
Estate Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J. The present writ petitions have been filed seeking directions inter alia for quashing/setting aside the common judgment dated 05.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts dismissing the appeals of the petitioner against the common order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the Estate Officer in PPA No. 11/2022 and PPA No. 12/2022. By way of the order dated 01.06.2022, the learned Estate Officer had passed an eviction order under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (`PP Act'), besides imposing damages to the tune of Rs.2,99,77,090/- for wrongful occupation of the Public Premises under Section 7 of the PP Act.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that late Sh. Moora Mal and his son late Sh. Ishar Dass migrated as displaced persons from Pakistan at the time of partition of India. Temporary tenements were raised by the Government in 1947 and Late Sh. Moora Mal started running the business of fuel and coal depot on a piece of land under the name and style `M/s Moora Mal Lekh Raj' (`the firm'). License dated 14.05.1963 was issued to run a fuel a
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.
Mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises.
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....
Tenancy rights under a Will cannot override specific contractual terms prohibiting assignment without consent, rendering unauthorized occupation invalid under the Public Premises Act.
Once land is acquired by the government and physical possession is taken over, any right of a private person stands extinguished. Additionally, any purchase of public land is non-est in the eyes of t....
The court emphasized that eviction under the Public Premises Act requires subjective satisfaction of unauthorized occupation, ensuring fairness in administrative actions.
Adverse possession claims over government land require substantial evidence; mere long-standing possession does not confer title, particularly where public interest is involved.
Unauthorized occupation of public premises does not confer legal rights; eviction proceedings must adhere to statutory requirements, and alleged violations of natural justice must be substantiated.
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
