NANDRAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 21/07/2000 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing a batch of 15 writ petitions, which involved similar points of dispute as to whether petitioners were unauthorized occupants of public premises, in terms of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short the "Act"). In each of the writ petitions challenge was to the common judgment and order dated 15/11/1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appeals filed by the writ petitioners. The appeals related to order dated 4/04/1997 passed by the Estate Officer holding that the premises in respect of which proceedings had been initiated under the Act were public premises and the notices in each case were in unauthorized occupation of the said public premises and were liable to be evicted.

(2.) Factual position relevant for adjudication of the points in dispute are as follows:- The Chief Commissioner of Delhi by notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the "L.A. Act") acquired about 150 acres of land situated towards the sought of Najafgarh Road, Village Basai Darapur for the purpose of resettlement of displaced persons from West Pakistan. The said land was acquired on 23.2.1952. With the issuance of the aforesaid notification acquiring the land by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi, the land vested absolutely in the then provincial Government of Delhi free from all encumbrances. Prior to the aforesaid acquisition there were brick kilns on the said land. On 17.10.1956, the above said acquired land was placed at the disposal of the Rehabilitation Housing Corporation (in short the "Corporation), which was a company sponsored by the Central Government with 80% shares for the development of a colony named as Kirti Nagar for displaced persons. The Corporation took possession of the said land and started the development work in accordance with the scheme approved for the purpose. In accordance with the said scheme and after development of the land, various plots for construction of residential buildings were carved out and the said land was allotted to displaced persons. A plot No. A-32 measuring 650 sq. yds. was also carved out, out of the said land and the same was allotted by the Corporation to one Sh. Kulnath Singh. In the Meantime, Sh. G. Sarin (Respondent No. 3) requested the Corporation for transfer of the aforesaid plot in his name. The said request was considered by the Corporation and it was agreed to by the corporation in their letter dated 27.7.56 on the same terms and conditions of sale which the plot was originally allotted to Sh. Kulnath Singh. However, the land under plot No. A-32, Kirti Nagar was reserved for a school/public utility and, therefore, Sh. G. Sarin was allotted another plot No. E-51/52, Kirti Nagar measuring 650 sq. yds. vide letter of the Corporation dated 13.2.1957 at the same rate and on the same terms and conditions of sale, on which it was originally allotted. In the allotment letter issued to said Sh. G. Sarin, it was stipulated that possession of the said plot would be handed over to him after removal of the squatters. The Corporation, however, failed to hand over possession of the said plot to Sh. G. Sarin and, therefore, he could not pay the balance amount, and could not get the sale deed/lease deed executed in him name. He was intimated by the Corporation by letter dated 3.2.1965 that the question of eviction of squatters "had been referred to the police to proceed against them as criminal trespassers and result was awaited. He was also informed by another letter dated 7.11.1966 that necessary action was being taken against the squatters for their removal from the aforesaid plot and that further development in the matter would be communicated to him in due course of time. Ultimately, Sh. G. Sarin deposited a total amount of Rs. 5,924.09 upto 30.4.1968 against the demand notice of Corporation dated 18.3.1968. In 1966 Corporation filed a suit for possession of the aforesaid plot and recovery of damages for use and occupation as against 17 alleged unauthorised occupants, who were occupying the said plot since 1.11.1956 whereas Sh. G. Sarin was added as the 18th defendant. The writ petitioners were added as defendants 1 to 17. In the said suit Corporation sought for a decree for possession by removal of unauthorized constructions on the aforesaid plot. The aforesaid suit was dismissed on 9.12.1976 on the ground that the legal heirs of some of the defendants, who died during the pendency of the suit, were not brought on record of the Court within the stipulated period of time and, therefore, the suit stood abated in toto. Near about the same time, the Corporation was wound up pursuant to orders of this Court by order dated 2.1.1973 wherein the suit filed by the Corporation was noticed and it was observed therein that the said suit was still pending. Resolution passed at the Extraordinary meeting of the Corporation dated 245.8.1972 transferring the rights and liabilities of the Corporation to the Central Govt. was approved with the observation that the same would not in any manner affect the defence of the persons said to be in possession of the property in civil suit. It was observed that the Central Govt. would take over the entire assets and liabilities of the Corporation in terms of the said resolution. A regular First Appeal was filed on 11.7.1977 in this Court by the Corporation against the order dated 9.2.1976 of learned Sub-Judge. However, by order dated 25.8.1992 the said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on the ground that service of notices on some respondents were yet to be effected and, there was no justification for allowing further time for summoning the respondents. A writ petition was filed in this Court by Sh. G. Sarin respondent No. 3 arraying Union of India and Delhi Development Authority as respondents. In the said writ petition, prayer was for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to proceed forthwith under the Act against the squatters/land grabbers in possession of plot No. E-51/52, Kirti Nagar and hand over possession to him after securing their eviction with an alternative prayer to issue a writ, direction or order of like nature, directing respondents to allot and give possession of an alternative similar plot in comparable locality in lieu of the above mentioned plot on the same terms and conditions. In the said proceedings, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Ministry of Home. Affairs (Rehabilitation Division) contending inter alia, that proceedings under the 'Act' in order to evict the unauthorized occupants from the aforesaid plot of land had been initiated. In that view of the matter, writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the said proceedings be completed within a period of one year from the date of the order i.e. 27.4.1995. When proceeding was initiated under the Act and the Estate Officer passed a final order on 14/03/1996, writ petitioners filed appeals before the Additional District Judge, Delhi against the said order. Appeals were disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 14.10.1996 holding that fresh adjudication was necessary and for that purpose adequate and proper notice of hearing was to be given to the parties. Pursuant to the said order of remand, fresh notices were issued and the parties were heard. On consideration of the materials on record, Estate Officer held that writ petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the concerned plots of land and were to be evicted. Appeals before the Additional District Judge, Delhi did not bring any relief and thereafter the writ petitions were filed.

(3.) Four questions were formulated by the learned Single Judge. They are as follows: (a) Whether the property is a public premises? (b) whether any preliminary enquiry was necessary before issuance of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act? (c) whether the proceedings initiated under the Act are barred by principle of res judicata? (d) Whether the petitioners have acquired right to the property in question by way of adverse possession and whether the proceedings were barred by law of limitation? On consideration of the materials on record, it was held by learned Single Judge, that the issues were to be answered against the writ petitioners. He held that neither the Estate Officer nor the Additional District Judge, Delhi has committed any error in passing the orders. The findings recorded by learned Single Judge are assailed in this appeal. It was submitted that the conclusions arrived at by learned Single Judge, in respect of the four issues, were erroneous and contrary to law. Reliance has been placed on several decisions to substantiate the stand. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that highly disputed factual questions are involved and learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions.