DHARAM PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks a writ of certiorari, etc. for quashing the order dated 10 December 1991 of the third respondent, namely, the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Director (Panchayat), Development Department (Panchayat Unit)ofthe Delhi Administration. By this order the third respondent required the Block Development Officer, the fourth respondent, to initiate proceedings of ejectment against the petitioner on account of his illegal possession of Gaon Sabha land of village Aya Nagar which comprised in Khasras No. 600 and 601. The fourth respondent was required to resume the land ofGaon Sabha. It is stated that the petitioner had installed a petrol pump on this land which was in his illegal possession. A copy of this order was endorsed to the petitioner; the Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, the fifth respondent; and to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), the sixth respondent. In the endorsement of this order the Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, was requested that the petrol pump had been installed illegally by the petitioner on Gaon Sabha land which may be vacated at the earliest and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) was requested that no objection certificate in favour of the petitioner who was running the petrol pump in the name of Ram Grit Auto be withdrawn as he had illegally installed the petrol pump on Gaon Sabha land of village Aya Nagar.

(2.) There are six respondents. The first two respondents are the Union of India and the Delhi Administration. The other four respondents have been mentioned above.

(3.) Petitioner says he was granted lease of land bearing Khasras No. 600 and 601 in village Aya Nagar which measured 5 bighas at the rate of I 10.00 per bigha per year by the Gaon Sabha of village Aya Nagar under a resolution of the Gaon Sabha on 18 December 1986. This he says was for the purpose of installing a petrol pump for a period of nine years. Petitioner says it was thereafter that he obtained the no objection certificate from theD.C.P. (Licensing) and explosive licence from the Controller of Explosives to instal the petrol pump there. His claim, therefore, is that possession of his land is authorised. Insupport of his case the petitioner has filed resolutions passed in the meeting of the Gaon Sabha under the Chairmanship of Raghubir Singh, Pradhan, on 18 December 1986. Resolution No.3 is relevant and it states that Pradhan told in the meeting that the petitioner who was resident of village Aya Nagar had made a shop of 10'xl2' at Khasra No.600-601. After discussion with the petitioner it was found that he wished to pay rent and he was ready to pay Rs.l20.00 per year. The resolution says that the members passed the resolution unanimously and asked the same to be sent to the competent authority for its approval. From this resolution it would appear that it was the petitioner who dictated the terms after having illegally constructed a shop of size of 10' x 12' on the Gaon Sabha land, and then he said he would pay Rs. 120.00 per year as the rent. Petitioner says that this resolution was sent to the competent authority for approvals No approval is forthcoming and on this basis the argument is that it must be presumed that approval had been granted. For one, there is nothing on record that any such resolution was in fact submitted-to the competent authority, and two, there cannot be any deemed permission in a case like this. The law, rules or regulations do not provide for raising any such presumption. 'This was respecting land of the size of 10' x 15' in Khasra No. 600-601. The petitioner says that then another resolution was passed by the Gaon Sabha whereby he was given lease of land of Gaon Sabha in whole of these two Khasras and this was specifically provided for the purpose of installation of petrol pump by unanimous resolution of the Gaon Panchayat. There is nothing on the record any such meeting of the Gram Panchayat in which such aresolution was passed. But in support of his case the petitioner has brought on record a certificate issued by the Pradhan Raghubir certifying that the land of Khasras 600 and 601 had been given to the petitioner on lease by Gram Panchayat, the rental being at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per year, and that these Khasras had been given to the petitioner for installation of petrol pump by unanimous decision of the Panchayat. The certificate does not give the date or even the date of the resolution. The person who gave this certificate is dead. There is no apporoval of the competent authority assuming that there was any such resolution. Again it would appear that even any such resolution was passed it would have certainly been at the dictation of the petitioner. For a land of the size of 10' x 15' he agreed to pay annual rent at the rate of Rs. 1101- and now for the land of the size of 5 bighas comprised in Khasras 600-601 he agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per year !