VINOD SHARMA Vs. ESTATE OFFICER, DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the validity of an order dtd. 6/5/2015 passed by the Estate Officer in the course of proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [1] Additionally, challenge is laid to an order dtd. 15/7/2020 passed by the District Judge on the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner herein and the same has affirmed the order of eviction as passed by the Estate Officer. [1] The Act

(2.) It becomes relevant to note that no challenge as such was raised to the recordal of the background facts in the order passed by the District Judge. That order records that the father of the petitioner was originally allotted premises in Block J, falling in B.K. Dutt Colony. The aforesaid allotment is stated to have been made by the Department of Rehabilitation. In 1984, upon a review of the unutilized land held by the Department under its administration and upon it being recognized that the area had become urbanized, parts thereof were transferred to the Delhi Development Authority[2]. On the record is a communication of 5/4/1984 in terms of which possession of the unutilized land was transferred by the Department to the DDA. Appended to that communication is an Annexure setting forth the details of the land and developed plots which constituted a part of the transfer being made. At serial number 7, the Department set forth the details of the land falling by the side of the old wall of the graveyard in Block J of B.K. Dutt Colony. The total area of this piece of land was described to be 539 sq. yards and carried a further remark of it having been encroached upon. Admittedly the land which forms the subject matter of the present proceedings was comprised in the aforesaid piece of land. [2] DDA

(3.) Undisputedly the only allotment which was officially made in favour of the father of the petitioner was in Block J of the colony in question. The site plan which was annexed along with the communication of 5/4/1984 evidenced encroachments having been made adjacent to the old boundary wall and graveyard. Upon the factum of the aforesaid encroachment coming to light, the father of the petitioner is stated to have been placed on notice. Upon initiation of those proceedings, he submitted an affidavit dtd. 13/5/1996 stating therein that a plot of land admeasuring 269 sq. mts. had been in his occupation since 1963 and that he was willing to pay damages and other charges as may be leviable and was also willing to vacate the same as and when required by the DDA. Upon submission of that affidavit, a verification exercise was undertaken by the Department which drew up a note stating that the father of the petitioner had in fact encroached upon 139 sq. yards of land. It was accordingly found that he would be liable to pay damages for the period 5/4/1984 to 31/3/1996. The note further provided that proceedings for eviction may also be initiated.