ROSHAN LAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of 19/9/2014 passed by the Appellate Authority in proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [Act]. The Appellate Authority has affirmed the order of eviction as framed by the Estate Officer in terms of the provisions made under Sec. 5 of the Act. It has essentially found that the petitioner here claimed an interest in the public premises by virtue of being a member of the Delhi Peasant Multipurpose Society Limited [Society]. Admittedly the lease that was executed by the Delhi Development Authority [Authority] in favour of the Society had come to an end by efflux of time. The Authority thereafter proceeded to direct it to hand back possession of the leased land. Since its numerous members including the petitioner failed to vacate the subject premises, proceedings under the Act came to be initiated and which ultimately culminated in the passing of eviction orders by the Estate Officer. It is in the aforesaid background that the Appellate Authority came to hold that since the petitioner claimed a right to occupy and cultivate the land constituting the subject premises only through the Society, no right stands vested in him to continue to occupy the public premises.

(2.) It becomes apposite to note that the writ petition has been styled as having been instituted by "Shree Roshal Lal (deceased) through his brother Raj Kumar". Admittedly, the proceedings under the Act were initiated against the deceased cultivator. He is stated to have died on 6/5/2018. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been occupying the land in question where the widow of the erstwhile cultivator also resides. It is in the aforesaid background and on an assertion that the petitioner was also a member of the Society that the present writ petition has been preferred. It becomes necessary to note that the institution of the present writ petition on behalf of a dead individual cannot possibly be countenanced. However, since the petitioner claims to be an agriculturist of meagre means and the present matter was duly entertained way back in 2019, the Court does not choose to non-suit him on this technical ground. The Court thus proceeds on the basis that the writ petition is being pursued by the brother of the original cultivator asserting a right to possess the land in his own right.

(3.) When the writ petition was initially entertained, a learned Judge taking note of the orders passed in the W.P.(C) Nos. 2 and 3 of 2019 had provided that till 8/1/2019, status quo in respect of the petitioner's land would be maintained. The said order reads thus:-