KRISHNA DEVI Vs. ESTATE OFFICER IV & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 05.02.2007 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner on 9.1.95 acquired the land bearing no. T -222 Kala Pet, Malka Ganj Road, Sadar Bazar (North) Subzi Mandi, Delhi from one Sh. Kalu Ram, through his son/attorney Sh. Jagan Nath and was running one kiryana shop there. That a show cause notice dated 19.6.02 was issued to the petitioner u/s 4(2)(1) (b) (ii) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act), 1971 and thereafter an eviction order dated 23.9.02 was passed by the learned Estate Officer against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal u/s 9(2) (a) of the Public Premises Act which vide judgment dated 5.2.07 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. Thereafter a sealing order dated 7.5.07 was passed against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved with the same the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the principles of natural justice have been violated by the Estate Officer as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent himself. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the son of the petitioner had appeared before the Estate Officer on 11.7.2002, but no date thereafter was communicated to him by the Estate Officer. Counsel thus submits that the petitioner and her son remained under the bonafide impression that the next date would be communicated by the Estate Officer, therefore, he did not choose to appear before the Estate Officer. Counsel also submits that the petitioner had lawfully purchased the land in question from one Jagan Nath S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram by legally and validly executing the documents and, therefore, based on the said documents the petitioner became an authorized occupant of the said premises. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been singled out by the respondent for the purpose of initiating the proceedings under the Public Premises Act. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 8 of the Public Premises Act to contend that the Estate Officer being a quasi judicial authority is expected to follow the principles of natural justice. Counsel further submits that the Estate Officer should have given a fresh notice after having proceeded ex parte against the petitioner.