Lal Man Yadav v. UOI and Anr

KAILASH GAMBIIIR, J W.P.(c) No. L105/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No. 1105/2011 o/o Judgment delivered on: tzth May, 20tL Lal Man Yadav ...... Petitioner. Ihrough: Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Adv. versus Union of India & Anr. ..... Respondents fhrough: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? r I(AII"{SH GAMBHIR. I. Oral - 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 13.9.1985 and sealing order dated 20.7.2010 W.P.(C) No. 1105/2011 Page 1of 10 *,f ,r'f .aI passed by the respondent no.2. The petitioner also seeks directions to direct the respondents to de-seal and not to demolish the premises bearing No. C-95/5, Aaram Bagh, Panchquian Road, New Delhi and to put back the petitioner in possession of the said premises after de-sealing the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in occupation and possession of the property approximately measuring 15 yards in the colony popularly knor'vn as Aaram Bagh 'I' Point, Punchquian Road, New Delhi, where he has been residing along with other more than hundred habitants occupying their respective units. The petitioner has further stated that he has been in possession of the premises bearing No. C-95/5, Aaram Bagh, Panchquian Road, New Delhi since the year 2000 and suddenly on 21't July, 20t0 some of the officers of the Land & Development Office visited the said premises of the petitioner and had forcibly sealed the same. The petitioner has further stated that after putting serious efforts the petitioner came to know that eviction order dated 13.9.1985 was passed by the W.P.(c)No. 1105/2011 "4 learned Estate Officer against one Mr. Ram Kumar and the said eviction order remained unexecuted for a period of about 25 years and then suddenly on 20th July, 2010, the impugned order was passed by the Land & Development Office to evict the petitioner from his lawful occupation. It is further stated by the petitioner that no show cause notice was served upon him before taking the said illegal action of sealing the said premises of the petitioner and even no -proceedings under the Public Premises Act were initiated by the respondents against him. 3. Mr. Sunil Ahuja, counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in settled and uninterrupted possession of the said premises bearing no. C-95/5, Aaram Bagh, Panchquian Road, New Delhi, since 2000 and the petitioner had also been enjoying electricity connection after the same was installed in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner was regularly receiving the bills from BSES in his name at the said address. Counsel further submits that even the ration card and the election card W.P.(c) No. 1105/2011 -< clearly bear the name of the petitioner at the said residential address. Counsel also submits that no proceedings were initiated by the respondents against the petitioner under the Public Premises Act and even no show cause notice was serued by the learned Estate Officer upon the petitioner and the premises of the petitioner had been sealed in a most illegal and draconian manner by the respondent, without taking care to follow the Iaw of the land. Counsel also submits that the premises under the occupation of the petitioner is not connected in any manner with the premises which was under the occupation of Mr. Ram Kumar against whom the eviction order was passed in the year 1985. In support of his arguments counsel has placed reliance on the order passed by this court tn WP.(C) No. 5235/2010, titled Mahesh l(umar Shanna Vs. aOL dated 4.8.2O1.O. 4. The respondent/Union of India in their counter affidavit on the other has taken a stand that the eviction order under Section 5 of the P.P.Act was passed by the W.P.(C) No. 1105/20L1 Jt' f learned Estate Officer as long back as on 13.9.85 and possession of the site measuring 7 sq. y