A license does not confer legal rights over property, and past possession without a valid lease does not justify claims for compensation or rehabilitation.

O R D E R

1. The Petitioner contends that his late father, Mr. Ram Nath, was allotted Shop No. 29(3), Market Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, New Delhi – 1100541, by Respondent No. 1, which was used for running a kirayana shop. The Petitioner’s father was regularly paying rent with respect to the Subject Property till the year 1976, whereafter Respondent No. 1 stopped accepting the rent. Nonetheless, the Petitioner asserts that they were in lawful occupation of the Subject Property, and places reliance on electricity bills and other such documents to establish their long possession over the same.

2. The Subject Property has now been demolished on 3rd August, 2024 at the instance of Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner contends that the

1 “Subject Property”

W.P.(C) 12777/2024 Page 1 of 5 demolition constitutes an unlawful action as Respondent No. 1 did not give any notice to the Petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 19712 or even terminate the tenancy of the Petitioner’s father. Therefore, it is argued that the demolition action is liable to be set aside. Further, it is contended that the Petitioner and his father were in continuous interrupted lawful possession of the Subject Property since the year 1951, and therefore, on account of wrongful eviction and demolition of their shop, they are entitled to be granted alternate accommodation as well as compensation of INR 10 lakhs along with interest.

3. As regards the question of the Petitioner’s lawful possession and entitlement over the Subject Property, a coordinate bench of this Court has considered the same contentions and decline to interfere against the demolition action through order dated 9th July, 2024 in W.P.(C) 3307/20243. The said judgment was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court; however, this challenge was also rejected through judgment dated 29th July, 2024 in LPA 591/2024. The relevant observations of the Division Bench are as follows:

“12. This Court has heard the arguments of Mr. Rajiv Khosla, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, perused the impugned judgement and considered the documents on record.

13. At the outset, we find it relevant to consider the status of the appellants qua the subject land/hutments. It is not denied by any of the parties that the predecessors-in-interest and grandfathers of the present appellants were in occupation of the subject land/hutments as licencees. It is also not disputed that the Khyber Hostel was being used as hostel services for the serving officers of the armed forces. It is also not disputed that none of the appellants were inducted into the hutments by way of a licence. As per the learned counsel for the respondents the last of such serving officers had

2 Public Premises Act

3 Titled “Sanjay Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.”

W.P.(C) 12777/2024 Page 2 of 5 left the hostel in the year 1993. It is also not disputed that the predecessors-in-interest and grandfathers of the present appellants were inducted as licencees in the said subject lands/hutments only for the purpose of serving the officers who were occupying the Khyber Hostel. Thus, it can be safely concluded that post 1993, the services of the original licencees were probably not required further. It has also come on record that barring appellant nos. 5 and 7, no other appellant has been able to demonstrate how they got possession of the said hutments. It is also not disputed that even appellant nos. 5 and 7 admit to have paid licence fee only till the year 2001 and not thereafter. In such factual circumstances, it cannot be said that the licence, particularly in the case of appellant nos. 5 and 7, continued even after the year 2001. So far as the other appellants are concerned, there being no document in their favour on record, cannot be held to having legal possession of the subject lands/hutments. It is trite that no interest in the land passes over to the licencee under a