The ownership of an immovable property cannot be decided on the basis of Jamabandi. Entry in a Jamabandi does not confer title on a person whose name appears in that Jamabandi.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. This Court, vide the present common judgment, intends to dispose of (i) W.P.(C) No. 2728/2018 titled as `Mrs. Roseline Wilson & Ors v. ASI & Ors.' and (ii) W.P.(C) No. 8203/2018 titled as `Luice. M. Jacob v. UOI & Ors.'. In both these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners are challenging the eviction orders passed by the Archaeological Survey of India (`ASI'). Vide the impugned eviction orders, ASI sought to evict the Petitioners from the Government land which forms part of D'Eremao Cemetery, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, a centrally protected monument, which is declared of national importance vide Notification No. 7331 dated 13.12.1922 and published in the Gazette of India on 23.12.1922.

2. In W.P.(C) No. 2728/2018 titled as `Mrs. Roseline Wilson & Ors v. ASI & Ors.', the Petitioners (63 in numbers) have assailed the order dated 05.03.2018 bearing F.No. 33/35/2015-M (Pt.) (`Impugned Eviction Order-1') issued by ASI. In W.P.(C) No. 8203/2018 titled as `Lucie M. Jacob v. UOI & Ors.' the Petitioner is praying for quashing of the eviction order dated 01.05.2018, bearing F.No.33/39/2014-M (`Impugned Eviction Order-2'), issued by ASI. Vide the Impugned Eviction Orders, ASI directed the Petitioners to demolish the unauthorized construction raised by them on the Government land forming part of the D'Eremao Cemetery and to vacate the said occupied land within three weeks of receiving the Impugned Eviction Orders.

FACTS AS NARRATED IN W.P.(C) NO. 2725/2018

3. It is the claim of Petitioners (63 in numbers) that they have been in continuous possession of the property bearing Khasra No. 465 which has been claimed by Petitioners to be known as Christian Compound, Kishan Ganj, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `said Property'). It is claimed that they are in possession of said Property since days beyond recall. ASI declared the said property as centrally protected monument of national importance vide Notification No. 7331 dated 13.12.1922, which was published in the Gazette of India on 23.12.1922. It is the claim of Petitioners that ASI wants to grab the said Property from the Petitioners on the ground that the said Property is a part of a protected monument named as `D'Eremao Cemetery'. The Petitioners claim themselves to be the owners on the basis of Jamabandi for the year 1921-1922 of the said Property. They further rely on their electricity bills, water bills, gas bills, etc. to claim their ownership over the said Property.

4. It is stated that a show cause notice dated 13.09.2005 was issued by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Superintending Archaeologist of ASI to the Petitioners wherein it was stated that the Petitioners had raised structure(s) on part of protected monument - D'Eremao Cemetery and thus, Petitioners were directed to show cause as to why an eviction order should not be passed against them. The Petitioners sent a reply dated 20.09.2005 to the said show cause notice dated 13.09.2005, wherein it was stated that the said Property was Armenian Cemetery, popularly known as Christian compound and it was not D'Eremao Cemetery. It was further claimed that the Armenian Cemetery was never declared a monument of national importance by ASI.

5. Thereafter, an eviction order dated 17.10.2005 was issued by ASI to Petitioners whereby directing them to demolish the unauthorized constructions raised on said Property and vacate the said Property within 24 hours. The Petitioners moved this Court challenging the said eviction order dated 17.10.2005 and for restraining ASI from taking any action to evict the Petitioners vide Writ Petitions bearing W.P.(C) No. 20917-76 of 2005. But, the said Writ Petitions were dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated 12.01.2007.

6. Consequently, the Petitioners preferred an appeal bearing LPA No. 123 of 2007 against the said Order dated 12.01.2007. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the appeal vide its Order dated 16.10.2008 and set aside the Order d