BHAGAT SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been brought for quashing the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer on July 17, 1972 under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and also the appellate order passed on February 11, 1974 by Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, under Section 9 of the said Act.

(2.) One of the grounds raised in challenging the said orders is that a notice issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not a valid notice inasmuch as it did not describe the premises to which this notice related. Annexure 'D' is the copy of the said notice which shows that the property to which it pertained is Nazul land measuring 64 sq. yards Commercial and 133 sq. yards residential located at Bagichi Allaudin, Delhi. No details have been given as to whether the said land is part of any khasra number or the said land has any municipal number. Even the boundaries of the said land were not given in the said notice. The eviction order passed under Section 5, copy of which is annexure 'F', shows that the eviction order has been made in respect of Nazul land measuring 64 sq. yards Commercial plus 1333 sq. yards residential, part of khasra No. 21135, 21136, 21137, at Qadam Sharif Estate, Delhi. The petitioner in response to this notice served on him under Section 4 of the Act has filed objections before the Estate Officer in which he did take the plea that the notice served on him is vague, illegal and void. The short question which needs decision in the present petition is whether in the absence of particulars of the property given in notice issued under Section 4, the eviction order passed in pursuance to that notice is vitiated or not ? It is, indeed, not disputed that it was mandatory requirement of law that a notice under Section 4 must be served before taking any proceeding under Section 5 of the Act. Mere fact that the petitioner assumed that the notice under Section 4 pertained to the premises in his occupation would not validate the notice if notice per se is bad. In Amulya Chandra Sutradhar & Another v. Estate Officer, AIR 1964 Tripura 9(1), a similar question arose for decision and it was held by the learned Judicial Com-missioner that when proceedings are to be taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, the public premises in respect of which action is going to be taken must be ascertained by the Estate Officer and the first notice under Section 4(1) must clearly mention in respect of what public premises the eviction proceedings are being taken. It was further observed that thus the description of property in the first notice must not be indefinite as it is necessary for the reason that if a person is to be evicted from any premises in his possession which is claimed to be public premises, he must be told clearly by the description in the notice as to what are those premises are and it is only after knowing what those premises are that the said person can show cause against such eviction.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the premises in possession of the petitioner also bear municipal No. 10547/1, Gali No. 3, Bagichi Allaudin, Motia Khan, New Delhi, but in the notice under Section 4 except for giving the measurements of the land nothing has been mentioned as to what are the boundaries of the said land and whether the said land is part of any khasra number or whether the said land bears any municipal number. He has vehemently argued that notice is clearly not valid inasmuch as it does not show specifically as to what premises it pertains to. I am inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect because the notice under Section 4 must contain the particulars of the premises so that the person on whom notice is served is made aware clearly as to for what premises he has to show cause. The subsequent correction made in the description of the premises in the ultimate order of eviction passed under Section 5 of the Act does not have the effect of curing the defect appearing in the notice. In Dr. Yash Paul Gupta v. Dr. S. S. Anand and others, AIR 1980 Jammu & Kashmir 16(2), the notice under Section 4 did not contain the reasons as to how the Estate Officer came to the conclusion that the persons in occupation of public premises are unauthorised occupants and such reasons were sought to be specified in the final order. It was held by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir that as the notice under Section 4 did not contain the reasons, thus the notice under Section 4 is invalid and the effect of giving reasons in subsequent order does not cure the invalid notice served under Section 4 of the Act.