Ganpat Ram v. Union of India & Anr

V.B.GUPTA, J. mw

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI CM (M) No. 546/2010 & CM No. 7428/2010 % Judgment reserved on: 13th September, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 17th September, 2010 Sh. Ganpat Ram, S/o late Sh. Gurdayal, R/o 1175, DDA flat, Gali No. 35, Madangir, New Delhi ….Petitioner. Through: Mr. H.R.Verma, Advocate. Versus 1. Union of India Through its Chief Engineer Central Public Works Department Vikas Marg, ITO, New Delhi 2. The Estate Officer, Central Public Works Department Office of the Estate Officer & Executive Engineer J Division, CPWD, East Block-II, Level-III, R.K.Puram, New Delhi ….Respondents Through: Mr. Sewa Ram with Mr. R.K.Bachchan, Advocates HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging judgment dated 6.10.2009 passed by District Judge, New Delhi. Vide impugned judgment, appeal of petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short as "Act") against order dated 7.6.2004 passed by Estate Officer, was dismissed. 2. Case of petitioner is that he has been running a Dhaba at site in question i.e. near D-157, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi for last more than 30 years. The said Dhaba is registered under Delhi Shops and Establishments Act and it comes under the jurisdiction of NDMC and the same has been assessed for the purpose of house tax also. It is stated that CPWD has no concern whatsoever, either as owner or lessee of the site in question, therefore, the Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to pass any order. NDMC has also allotted an alternative Tandoor site to the petitioner at Golf Links but the same could not be allotted to him since letter of allotment was received after the expiry of date of intimation. Thus, this fact corroborates that CPWD, does not have any hold on the premises in question and CPWD is meant only for Government quarters and they have no possessory or title over the property in question. 3. A Show cause notice as per provision of Section 4 of the Act was issued by the Estate Officer. Petitioner filed his response to the show cause notice. Thereafter, Estate Officer, vide order dated 7.6.2004, passed an eviction order. Petitioner filed appeal before District Judge, challenging the order of Estate Officer. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Dhaba of petitioner is registered as per provisions of Delhi Shops and Establishments Act and NDMC has also assessed the same for house tax. NDMC also sent notice for enhancement of the rateable value of premises in question. CPWD has no legal right on the property in question. 5. It is also contended that petitioner has been allotted alternative site by NDMC and as such, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that, petitioner has no right, title or interest over the suit land since, it is a Government land and petitioner is an encroacher of this land. Petitioner earlier filed a suit against respondent seeking decree for mandatory and permanent injunction. That suit was dismissed by Civil Judge, who vide order dated 11.2.2004, held that petitioner is an encroacher upon the Government land and is having no right, title or interest in the suit land. Hence, present petition is not maintainable. In support of its contentions, learned counsel for respondents cited following judgments; a) Satsang Committee Nizamuddin (Regd).vs.Lt. Governor & others, 2002 III AD (Delhi) 364; (b) Okhla Factory Owners's Association (Regd.)& Anr. vs. The Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.; 108(2003) DLT 517 (DB) c) Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata Singh vs. Union of India, 2003(103)DLT 654 and; d) Shehzadi Begum vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. R.S.A.No. 132/2007,