Sh Dheeraj Bansal v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors

Judgment reserved". During arguments, learned senior counsel on behalf of petitioners placed heavy reliance on the judgment of a coordinate bench this court in the case titled Sudhir Goel vs MCD, AIR 2005 Delhi 7 and read extensively from the same in order to explain the distinction between the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the Public Premises Act in the light of distinctive character of a tenant and an unauthorized occupant. On the said legal issue, there is no dispute. But the issue involved in the present cases is quite different, as discussed hereafter. GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2024.03.15 14:24:02 +05'30'

W.P.(C) 10446/2022 & Connected matters Page 14 of 19 pages

¶4Thus, basic contention advanced on behalf of petitioners is that since DDA continued to accept license fee paid by them, their status being of licensee, they cannot be evicted taking resort to the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. According to the petitioners, they can be evicted from the subject premises only through suit which should be filed before the Civil Court. On the other hand, the respondent DDA is emphatic that what was being paid by the petitioners was damages on account of unauthorized occupation and not license fee, so the proceedings for eviction of petitioners would be sustainable under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act.

¶5On this aspect, it would be significant to briefly traverse through the material on judicial record.

¶6As mentioned above, the first judicial scrutiny of the ex-parte orders passed by the Estate Officer was by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 08.12.2006 in appeals of the petitioners under Section 9 of the Act. In the said judgment dated 08.12.2006, the appellate authority after scrutiny of records held that some of the appellants (petitioners herein) had filed affidavits testifying that they were ready to pay damages as well as arrears, if any of the previous encroachers and they would vacate the subject premises as and when required by the DDA for any development scheme; that the respondents continued accepting damages from the petitioners; that from material on record of the Estate Officer, it was evident that the appellants (petitioners herein) were encroachers on DDA land; and that Date: 2024.03.15 14:23:48 +05'30'

W.P.(C) 10446/2022 & Connected matters Page 15 of 19 pages

there was no force in the contentions of the present petitioners that they were wrongly proceeded ex-parte or that the orders of the Estate Officer suffered the vice of non-application of mind. The only ground on which the appellate authority set aside the impugned order was on the issue of regularization scheme of the respondents. The appellate authority in the operative part of judgment dated 08.12.2006 held thus: "The matter is remanded back to the Estate Officer, to enable to appellants to make submissions/lead evidence with respect to their claim that there case/s is/are covered by Govt.'s Regularization Scheme. Both the parties shall appear before the Estate Officer on 03.01.2007 at 02:30 pm….. The appellants shall make the submissions/lead evidence before the Estate Officer with regard to their claim for regularization, on the date fixed. The respondent meanwhile shall examine and submit before the Estate Officer whether the appellants are eligible for regularization as per law. The Estate Officer after considering the submissions made by both the parties, shall endeavor to dispose of the matter within two months".

¶7The present petitioners having opted not to challenge the judgment dated 08.12.2006 of the appellate authority, the dispute gets narrowed down to the issue of regularization scheme of DDA, if any.

¶8The remanded proceedings which were to be concluded by the Estate Officer by February 2007 continued and culminated vide impugned order dated 30.05.2019.

¶9In the impugned order dated 30.05.2019, the Estate Officer brought on record as many as 46 dates of hearing during the period from 03.01.2007 to 28.11.2011 when the matters were taken up in the said remanded proceedings and observed that the petitioners did not file any affidavit or Date: 2024.03.15 14:23:35 +05'30'

W.P.(C) 10446/2022 & Connected matters Page 16 of 19 pages

documents to establish their claim qua regularization of the land in their favour and on the other hand the DDA through its Halka Patwari filed status report dated 03.01.2011; that thereafter on 28.11.2011, attorney of some of the petitioners filed specific affidavits of the petitioners testifying that they are ready to pay damages and arrears of damages and would vacate the subject premises as and when required by DDA in any scheme; that the land in question was acquired vide award No. 1525 and placed at the disposal of DDA vide notification dated 30.08.1963 and the same is required for planned development of Delhi; that the land in question is earmarked for Facility Centre No. 2 in the Zonal Development Plan of Zone C of the Master Plan of Delhi-2001; and that a plan for the said proposed Facility Centre at the land in question has already been approved by the Technical Team of DDA in its meeting dated 25.09.1989. In the said impugned order dated 30.05.2019, the Estate Officer also recorded that DDA has taken a categorical stand qua no proposal for regularization of the existing industrial activities and the land in question is not enlisted in the list of Redevelopment of Unplanned Industrial Area as mentioned in para 7.6.2 of MPD-2021 which are incorporated as per the notification of Government of NCT of Delhi regarding non-conforming clusters of industrial concentrations having more than 70% plot and since the present petitioners had not been able to contradict that situation, and rather they had admitted being in unauthorized occupation, they were liable to be evicted. Accordingly, the Estate Officer passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 for eviction of the present petitioners and also for payment of damages by them as quantified in the said order.

Date: 2024.03.15 14:19:02 +05'30'

W.P.(C) 10446/2022 & Connected matters Page 17 of 19 pages

¶10The said order dated 30.05.2019 of the Estate Officer was again assailed by way of appeal under Section 9 of the Act which culminated into the impugned order dated 08.09.2021 of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, North, Rohini, Delhi.

¶11In the impugned order dated 08.09.2021, the appellate authority after traversing through the previous record and contentions held that according to the records of the Estate Officer, several opportunities were afforded to the present petitioners to lead evidence and to file documents in support of their claim that the respondent DDA had regularized the land in question, but no such material was produced by the present petitioners and even during the hearings before the appellate authority, counsel for the present petitioners did not explain as to why no evidence was led by them in the course of proceedings remanded before the Estate Officer, though the Estate Officer was more than lenient towards them by keeping the proceedings pending from the year 2007 to 2019 despite specific directions of the learned Additional District Judge to dispose of the same within two months. The appellate authority upheld the impugned order to the extent of directing eviction of the present petitioners from the subject premises, but as regards the damages, the matter was remanded to the Estate Officer in order to explain the basis on which the damages were computed.

¶12Thus, despite unduly enlarged period of time spanning over from the year 2007 to 2019 the present petitioners brought not even a shred of document on record in support of their contention of regularization of their occupation in the subject premises. On this aspect, no arguments at all were Date: 2024.03.15 14:18:45 +05'30'

W.P.(C) 10446/2022 & Connected matters Page 18 of 19 pages

advanced on behalf of the petitioners in order to assail the impugned orders. That being so, both orders impugned in these writ actions deserve to be upheld.

¶13 Further, in the counter affidavit filed by DDA in the present proceedings, it has been specifically testified (pdf 285) that as per MPD-2021, there is no proposal for in situ regularization of the existing industrial activities at 1, GT Karnal Road, Delhi. Nothing contrary has been brought on record by the present petitioners. Annexed with the said counter affidavit is the detailed Re-Development Plan (pdf 289), according to which the land in question has been earmarked for Facility Centre.

¶14Not only this, the present petitioners have not brought on record even a shred of document in support of their contention that they were inducted as lessee or licensee in the subject premises by Raja Ram in the year 1960. Neither any lease deed nor license deed nor any other document executed by Raja Ram has been filed by the present petitioners. Even the precise date, month or year of the present petitioners having been inducted into the subject premises have not been disclosed. Rather, Raja Ram appears to be only a fictitious name. And admittedly it is nobody"s case that the present petitioners are licensees inducted by the DDA.

¶15The record is replete with documents unambiguously showing that the money being paid by the present petitioners to the DDA is damages and not rent or license fee.

Date: 2024.03.15 14:18:03 +05'30'

W.P.(C) 10446/2022 & Connected matters Page 19 of 19 pages

¶16As regards the undertakings on affidavits of some of the petitioners to vacate the subject premises as and when called upon by the DDA, there is not even a whisper that the same were obtained under any duress.

¶17In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to find any infirmity in either of the impugned orders dated 30.05.2019 and 08.09.2021 as well as in the demolition order dated 02.08.2022 and letter dated 23.08.2022, so the same are upheld. Consequently, all these writ petitions are dismissed.

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) MARCH 15, 2024/as

Date: 2024.03.15 14:17:41 +05'30'

W.P.(C) 10446/2022 & Connected matters Page 1 of 19 pages * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 12.03.2024 Judgment pronounced on: 15.03.2024 + W.P.(C) 10446/2022 SH. ANIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. MPS Kasana, Mr. Gitesh Chopra, Ms. Harshita Gulati, Mrs. Manisha Saroha, Mr Navish Bhati, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, and Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 10550/2022 ANAND KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. MPS Kasana, Mr. Gitesh Chopra, Ms. Harshita Gulati, Mrs. Manisha Saroha, Mr Navish Bhati, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, and Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 10560/2022 SHRI CHARAN SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRs SHRI INBERPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Date: 2024.03.15 14:29:02 +05'30' W.P.(C) 10446/2022 & Connected matters Page 2 of 19 pages Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. MPS Kasana, Mr. Gitesh Chopra, Ms. Harshita Gulati, Mrs. Manisha Saroha, Mr Navish Bhati, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, and Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 10525/2022 SH MANGAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. MPS Kasana, Mr. Gitesh Chopra, Ms. Harshita Gulati, Mrs. Manisha Saroha, Mr Navish Bhati, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, and Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 11185/2022 & CM APPL. 32878/2022 SH BHUPENDER SINGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. MPS Kasana, Mr. Gitesh Chopra, Ms. Harshita Gulati, Mrs. Manisha Saroha, Mr Navish Bhati, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, and Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal, Advocates versus Date: 2024.03.15 14:28:47 +05'30' W.P.(C) 10446/2022 & Connected matters Page 3 of 19 pages DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI + W.P.(C) 11186/2022 & CM APPL. 32880/2022 SH JITENDER SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRs SMT INDERJEET KAUR ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. MPS Kasana, Mr. Gitesh Chopra, Ms. Harshita Gulati, Mrs. Manisha Saroha, Mr Navish Bhati, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, and Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Mr. Manoj Kumar Tyagi, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Mimansak Bhardwaj and Mr Shekhar Tyagi, Govt. Pleader for UOI/R3 + W.P.(C) 11193/2022 & CM APPL. 32893/2022 SH HARBHAJAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. MPS Kasana, Mr. Gitesh Chopra, Ms. Harshita Gulati, Mrs. Manisha Saroha, Mr Navish Bhati, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, and Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2024.03.15 14:28:32 +05'30' W.P.(C) 10446/2022 & Connected matters Page 4 of 19 pages Mr. Rajesh Kumar Senior panel counsel with Ms. Mishika Pandita for respondent/UOI + W.P.(C) 11230/2022 & CM APPL. 32992/2022 SMT VANDANA SETHI (THROUGH HER ATTORNEY HOLDER) SHRI NARENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. MPS Kasana, Mr. Gitesh Chopra, Ms. Harshita Gulati, Mrs. Manisha Saroha, Mr Navish Bhati, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, and Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Mr. Virendra Pratap Singh and Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Advocates for UOI + W.P.(C) 11234/2022 & CM APPL. 32998/2022 SH. ASHOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. MPS Kasana, Mr. Gitesh Chopra, Ms. Harshita Gulati, Mrs. Manisha Saroha, Mr Navish Bhati, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, and Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI Date: 2024.03.15 14:28:18 +05'30' W.P.(C) 10446/2022 & Connected matters Page 5 of 19 pages + W.P.(C) 11238/2022 & CM APPL. 33001/2022 SH S