The court emphasized that mere possession does not confer ownership rights, and procedural defects in eviction notices can invalidate such actions.

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate writ, order, or directions to prohibit the respondent/Delhi Development Authority1 from raising the boundary wall on or around the agricultural land bearing Plot No.1 measuring about 8 bigha and 7 biswas situated at Khasra No. 16 Min., Village Chirage Sumali near Khureji Khas, Shastri Park, Delhi2, that is allegedly under the lawful possession of 1 DDA

2 Subject property interest. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. It is claimed that one Sh. Bhima S/o Late Sh. Harbal was allotted the subject property vide allotment letter dated 01.10.1962 issued by the DDA, in lieu of the acquired land of Sh. Bhima situated in Indraprastha. Thereafter, Sh. Bhima transferred his rights, title, and interest over the subject property in favour of one Sh. Jhamman Lal S/o Late Sh. Ganga Ram executing sale document viz., GPA, Agreement to Sell and Receipt, all dated 03.07.1975, after which Sh. Jhamman Lal transferred the same to the petitioner herein vide GPA, Will, Receipt, all dated 14.06.1995.

3. It is stated that in 1991, when Sh. Jhamman Lal (predecessor in interest) was in possession of the subject property, the DDA had initiated ejectment proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of the Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971 4, against Sh. Chaina Ram S/o Late Sh. Bhima (original allottee of the said agricultural land) by way of a Show Cause Notice5 under Section 4 of the PP Act and thereafter, an eviction order dated 20.08.1991 was passed against him by the concerned Estate Officer.

4. Aggrieved thereof, as many as 26 appeals were filed under Section 9 of the PP Act before the Appellate Authority (Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi), challenging the eviction order dated

3 General Power of Attorney

4 PP Act 5 SCN

5. The petitioner points out that during the appeal proceedings pertaining to Khasra no. 16, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the DDA and the following findings remained undisputed vide judgment dated 18.11.1995:

a) The appellants or their predecessors-in-interest retained cultivating possession of the said agricultural land uninterruptedly from 1962 till the ejectment proceedings dated 1991;

b) None of the appellants or their predecessors-in-interest were paid any compensation by DDA when their land situated in Indraprastha was acquired by the government;

c) Plot-wise lease deeds were in fact executed by the predecessors-in-

interest in respect of the said agricultural land which are available in the respective files maintained by the DDA for each khatta and plot forming part of the said agricultural land;

d) The predecessors-in-interest had paid lease money in respect of the said agricultural land to the DDA up to 1983-84 and DDA had accepted such payment;

e) In the show cause notice dated 30.01.1991 as well as the impugned eviction order dated 20.08.1991, it is stated that the predecessors-

in-interest were sought to be evicted from only 2 bigahs of agricultural land in Khasra No.16 without mentioning any description or exact location of these 2 bigahs.

6. Thus, on the basis of the abovementioned findings as well as the allotment letter dated 01.10.1962, the learned Appellate authority held that the proposed terms and conditions on which the allotment was made to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in 1962 were binding on both the parties i.e. the DDA and the predecessors-in-

interest. The learned Appellate authority further noted that the record of the estate officer showed that the leases of the predecessors were never cancelled by the DDA, before they served them with the show cause notice dated 30.01.1991. Even the said show case notice dated 30.01.1991 was held to be not in accordance with Section 4 of the PP Act since no description of the portion of the said agricultural land from which the predecessors were sought to be evicted was mentioned in such notice.

7. Accordingly, the learned App