SADHU RAM Vs. MCD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order passed by respondent No. 1 vide letter No.F.1/21/TC/LO/05/D222 dated 01.07.2008 whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of leasehold rights in respect of quarter bearing No. 10830/3, Balmiki Colony, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was rejected. Further, the petitioner prays for cancelling the lease deed dated 01.09.2008 executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 in respect of the aforesaid property and direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in the light of declared policy of the Government of India.

(2.) Briefly recapitulating the facts as averred in the writ petition are that the petitioner had been in possession of a portion of the premises bearing No. 10830/3, Balmiki Colony, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for the last about 40 years. The premises in question was initially allotted to one late Shri Bhagwan Sahai and after his death, his legal heirs handed over the possession of a portion to the petitioner, while the possession of other portion was handed over to respondent No. 2. It is further stated that according to the policy formulated by Government of India as applicable to the quarter in question, which are under the management and control of respondent No. 1, the persons found in possession of the suit property as well as other similarly situated flat were to be granted patta/leasehold rights in respect of the suit property. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for grant of leasehold rights to the respondent vide application dated 29.09.1984. In the same year i.e., 1984 three separate applications were moved by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and one Smt. Sarto Devi, daughter -in -law of the original allottee for grant of leasehold rights, but the same were not granted leasehold rights by the respondent No. 1 since none of them had exclusive and complete possession of the quarter in question.

(3.) The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2 made extensive unauthorized construction in the quarter in question, which was one of the major disqualification in the regularization of allotment. Since the unauthorized construction was endangering the safety of the petitioner's portion, he filed a suit for mandatory injunction before the Civil Judge, Delhi for removal of unauthorized construction by respondent No. 2. It was reported by respondent MCD that respondent No. 2 had raised unauthorized construction on a very large scale. Thereafter, notice dated 21.09.2004 was received by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 from the Estate Officer under Sec. 4(2) 5A (2) and 5B (1) of Public Premises Act whereby they were called upon to show cause why order for demolition and removal of unauthorized construction as well as for their eviction from the property/quarter be not made.