Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
M/s Moora Mal Lekh Raj – Appellant
Versus
The Estate Officer & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 16348 of 2022 with CM Appls. 51296-97 of 2022 and W.P.(C) 16376 of 2022 with CM Appls. 51395-96 of 2022
Decided On : 10-04-2023
Public Premises - Eviction - Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 5(1) and (2), Section 7 - The court discussed the eviction order under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the imposition of damages under Section 7 of the PP Act. The judgment highlighted the unauthorised occupation of public land, rejection of alternative allotment under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme, and the lack of right, title, or interest over the land in question.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions to quash a judgment dismissing appeals against an eviction order and imposition of damages for unauthorised occupation of public premises. The petitioner claimed occupation rights based on a tehbazari license and the Gadgil Assurance Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's occupation was unauthorised, rejected the claim for alternative allotment under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme, and upheld the eviction order and imposition of damages. The court also noted the possession of the premises had been taken over by the Government.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the eviction order, imposition of damages, the petitioner's claim for alternative allotment, and the nature of occupation of the public land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's occupation was unauthorised, rejected the claim for alternative allotment under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme, and upheld the eviction order and imposition of damages. The court also emphasized that no relief can be extended to the encroacher of Government land to protect possessory rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the eviction order and imposition of damages for unauthorised occupation of public land.
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 and coal depot to the firm under the Delhi Coal Control Order, 1963.
3. After the death of Moora Mal, his son Ishar Dass continued with the business on land near CPWD Enquiry Office, Mahadev Road, New Delhi.
4. This was subsequently shifted to Fuel Depot, Chambery No. 3, near Gole Dak Khana, New Delhi, which is the site in question. Fuel Depot was run from the site in question. In this regard, certificate dated 17.01.1966 was issued by New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) regarding tehbazari fees being charged from the firm.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that there was another migrant namely, Sardar Thakur Singh, who had been continuing business along with Ishar Dass. Since Sardar Thakur Singh and Sh. Ishar Dass were old friends, they continued to run business from the premises in question.
6. Proceedings under Section 7(2) of PP Act were initiated against the petitioner by the Land and Development Office (`L&DO') for payment of damages for the period from 01.01.1959 to 30.10.1965 on the ground of unauthorised occupation of the public premises in question. The same were opposed by late Sh. Ishar Dass on the ground that he was not an unauthorised occupant and that he had been paying tehbazari to NDMC.
7. On examination of record, it came to the fore that late Sh. Ishar Dass was paying tehbazari to NDMC, which was recovered by NDMC upto 31.03.1969. The matter was considered in consultation with the Ministry and it was decided to allot the site in question to the squatter on temporary basis. Accordingly, an offer to this effect was made to late Sh. Ishar Dass vide letter dated 05.08.1967, followed by reminders dated 05.06.1970 and 25.01.1973. Since Sh. Ishar Dass failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the temporary allotment, the same was withdrawn and cancelled vide letter dated 09.03.1973, and his occupation upon the said land was treated as unauthorised.
8. Subsequently, his representations received in this regard were also duly considered, which were not found satisfactory. Thus, it was decided to take action for eviction and recovery of damages. Accordingly, case for eviction and recovery of damage charges for the period from 01.01.1959 to 14.07.1973 was filed in the Court of the Estate Officer, but the same was withdrawn for revision of charges. Finally, fresh case was filed in the Court of Estate Officer under the PP Act for eviction and recovery of damages for the period from 01.01.1959 to 30.06.1982. A demand letter for damage charges for further period from 01.07.1982 to 31.03.1987 was also issued to late Sh. Ishar Dass on 13.11.1987.
9. Late Sh. Ishar Dass vide his reply dated 19.07.1985 to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Estate Officer took the plea for the first time that he was a displaced person and was cov
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
