JUGLAL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The genesis of this dispute is to be found in the Report of the Halqua Patwari dated 9.7.1998 in which it has been stated that on the demarcation of Khasra No.503/2, which is Gaon Sabha land, unauthorised construction carried out by the Petitioner, namely, Shri Juglal was noticed. The Report also mentions that the Patwari had been informed that this construction was 25-30 years old. On the basis of this Report proceedings under Section 86-A for the ejectment of the Petitioner appear to have been initiated. In the course of these proceedings, by his Order dated 31.3.2001, the Revenue Assistant (Vasant Vihar Sub-Division), New Delhi-110 037 ordered the ejectment of the Petitioner from Khasra No.503/2 (1-10), Village Rajokri, New Delhi with immediate effect.

(2.) It appears that no evidence was recorded. Yet, in the view of the Revenue Assistant, the illegal encroachments/houses were on Khasra No.509/2. It also transpires that some proceedings had been taken against the father of the Petitioner in respect of Khasra No.509/2 which were dismissed in default.

(3.) The Petitioner had assailed the Order dated 15th October, 2001, of the Revenue Assistant before the District Collector (South West, Kapashera, New Delhi) rejecting the Appeal, wherein it has, inter alia, been observed that "it is the responsibility of the appellant to prove that possession is an old one and more than three years old." The Appellate Authority had also returned the finding that the Petitioner had not succeeded in proving that his possession was open and hostile to the title of the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, that it could not be treated as adverse possession. In respect of electricity and water bills etc., the finding was that they could have pertained to Khasra No.509/2 and that the Petitioner had failed to conclusively prove that the construction was 25-30 years old. Mr.Andley had also sought to contend that the Petitioners are deliberately misleading the Court into believing that the old construction exists on Khasra No.503/2 whereas it may be located on Khasra No.509/2. What cannot be ignored is that there is not even an iota of evidence in this regard. The onus probandi at least initially rested on the Prosecutor/Revenue Assistant.