MADAN LAL JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a displaced person who migrated to India on partition of the country. After coming to Delhi he unauthorisedly occupied Government land on Mirdard Road, Minto Road, New Delhi. Unauthorised occupation which started with a small piece of land was admittedly gradually extended to cover an area of 831 sq. yds. The petitioner submits that he was doing business in fire wood and coal on the said piece of land. According to the case of the petitioner as per the Gadgil Assurance he is entitled to allotment of 200 sq. yds. of land at an alternate site for purposes of his business. The petitioner was sought to be evicted from the land in his possession because according to the respondents he is not covered within the Gadgil Assurance and, therefore, is not entitled to any alternative piece of land. An order was passed in this behalf by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The petitioner has challenged the same by way of the main writ petition. The petitioner sought interim relief in the writ petition with respect to possession of the land occupied by him and orders dated 1/10/1992 and 12/05/1994 were passed. The petitioner alleges violation of these orders which read as under:

(2.) However, in an application filed by the respondent for modification of the aforesaid orders, on the ground that petitioner was occupying public paths etc., these orders were modified by another order dated 25/05/2000. Since this order has bearing on the present contempt petition, we would like to reproduce the same:

(3.) In pursuance of the said order, officers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Land and Development Office inspected the site and thereafter the obstructions at site were removed with police assistance. It is not disputed that the petitioner still continues to occupy space of about 200 sq. yds. at the site in question. The petitioner is aggrieved of the action on the part of the respondents in clearing the obstructions on public path/road and right of way. The petitioner, however, disputes this. According to him there was no public path or right of way and the action was wholly illegal and violative of the order dated 25/05/2000 and the respondents are liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act.