TRILOK CHAND Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises a question whether an owner of a property, which has been acquired, could be treated as an unauthorised occupant for the purpose of Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, the Public Premises Act) even though only a symbolic possession was taken in the course of acquisition proceedings and he continued to be in actual physical possession of the property.

(2.) This is how the question arose. Land in dispute, including the structure that apparently stands on a part of it, admittedly owned by the petitioner and another, was acquired by a notification of January 31, 1957 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Acquisition Act). An award was made on February 23, 1961 by the Land Acquisition Collector under section II of the Acquisition Act. Thereafter on March 12, 1964 symbolic possession of the property was taken and delivered to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under section 16 of the Acquisition Act. It is a mmon case of the parties that the property was in the actual physical possession of the owners when symbolic possession of it was taken in the presence of the owners. This is also clear from the report of the land acquisition authorities in which the taking over and handing over of symbolic possession is recorded. It, however, appears that either the petitioner and the other co-owners never surrendered actual physical possession or. having done it, occupied it again. Be that as it may, proceedings were taken, to evict the owners under the provisions of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unia(uthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (for, short, the 1958 Act), but proved abortive as the 1958 Act was struck down. The proceedings were revived after the Public Premised Act replaced the 1958 Act. Pursuant to these proceedings the Estate Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi directed the eviction of the petitioner and of recovery of damages by two separate orders on the ground that, on the acquisition of the property in dispute, the petitioner ecame an unauthorised occupant within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act. The orders were upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Delhi by his order of April 14, 1976. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Additional District Judge.

(3.) A number of grounds were raised in the petition but at the hearing the attack to the validity of the impugned order was confined to the contention that the petitioner could not be treated as an unauthorised occupant for the purpose of the Public Premises Act and be dealt with accordingly in that the petitioner had been in actual physical possession of the property in dispute since before its acquisition.