J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The present batch of appeals have( has) been filed on behalf of the appellants under Order XLI read with Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) against the common impugned judgment dated 23rd January, 2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge – 06, South – East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in civil suits bearing CS No. 1704/2018 titled as ‗Bilquis v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.‘, CS No. 1703/2018 titled as ‗Nawab v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.‘, CS No. 1702/2018 titled as ‗Abdul Hameed & Ors. v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.‘, CS No. 1705/2018 titled as ‗Sherdin & Ors.

v. jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.‘.

2. Since the facts as well as the legal issues involved in the present batch of appeals are similar and all the appeals challenge the common impugned judgment passed in the above said civil suits, therefore this Court has culled out the facts and submissions out of the regular first appeal bearing RFA No.131/2022 titled as ‗Bilquis v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.‘.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The respondent no. 1 namely M/s Jamia Milia Islamia is a central university which initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 against the appellant and others in the year 1977 who allegedly encroached upon the university‟s property bearing Khasra no. 68 min admeasuring 24 Bighas and 11 Biswas of land in Village Okhla, New Delhi.

4. Thereafter, the concerned Estate Officer adjudicating in the above stated eviction proceedings, passed a consolidated judgement dated 29th March, 2006, ruling in favour of the respondent university holding that the appellant is in illegal an unauthorized occupation of the university‟s property.

5. In appeal, the District Court upheld the said judgment. The aggrieved parties including the present appellant filed various writ petitions bearing W.P (C) no. 4929, 1930 & 5292 of 2007 challenging the order of the District Court taking the plea of adverse possession and prescription, and also raising a plea that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the eviction order. The above said writ petitions were dismissed by this Court holding that the possession of the said land always continued with the respondent university and the Estate Officer was competent to initiate eviction proceedings, and pass eviction orders.

6. Pursuant to the above, the appellant preferred letters patent appeals bearing LPA No. 117-118 and 120 of 2010 which were dismissed vide judgment dated 14th March, 2011 by the Division Bench of this Court.

7. Furthermore, the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer attained finality when the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP bearing No. 10028/2011 filed by the appellant and others challenging the above said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.

8. Meanwhile, apprehending dispossession, the appellant along with others filed writ petition bearing W.P (C) no. 735/2012 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant and others then filed an application apprehending demolition, which was disposed of by this Court holding that the respondent university was entitled to take possession of land admeasuring 24 Bighas and 11 Biswas in Khasra No.

68.

9. Thereafter, the respondent university filed a writ petition bearing W.P (C) No. 9436/2015 before this Court seeking execution of the order of the Estate Officer and the same was disposed of in favour of the respondent university.

10. The appellant along with others, then filed a writ petition bearing W.P (C) No. 745/2016 before this Court seeking directions from this Court to stop the respondent university from dispossessing the appellant and other encroachers. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated

8th March, 2016 holding to the effect that the petitioners (appellant herein) cannot object to the execution of the eviction order.

11. Subsequently, the appellant and others filed another writ petition bearing