Ramu & Anr v. Delhi Development Authority

JUDGMENT

DEEPA SHARMA, J. Dismissed. For detailed order, see LPA No.479/2013. (Z' DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGl JANUARY 31, 2018 BG LPA Nos.481/2013 and connected matters VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ' " Judgmentdeliveredon; 3L0L2018 LPA 479/2013&CM Nos. 10527/2013.1

¶32n7S1nni^ SUNILKUMAR&ANR, Appellants •f versus rwi authority THROUGH:VICE L'Ji.AlKJVlAN , respondent -i-IZA481/2()13& CM Nos. lQ532/2nn. DI-IARAMBIRSINGH SAINIAND ANR Appeilanis versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondeiil jJA 482/2013&CM Nos. 105.15/2013,10536/2013 iAIGHANDANDANR versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent ^ LPA 483/2013_&cm Nos. 10538/2013.10539/2013, PRITAMSINGHSAIN!AND ANR Appt-llanls versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + IJ\^48J/20^&_CMjjos, 10541/2013.10547./7mi HARICHANDSAINI&ANR Appellants versus DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + L£A48Sa013&CM Nos. 10544/9.013.10545/7013 LPA No.47')/20l3andconnectedmattcn Page I ofsa (? RAICESHKUMARSAINIAND ANR Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMENT,AUTHOMTY Respondent ^ + T,PA 488/201:^&CMNos.10557/^-01 10558/2013 RAJINDERSAINIAND ANR Appellants versus . DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + T.PA 489/20^^ 10560/2013,10561/2^1^10562/2013 MOOL CHANDAND ANR Appellants versus DELHIdevelopmentAUTHORITY Respondent + T.PA 490/201^&CM Nns. 10S63/7.ni^,10564/2013 P^OTISAINIAND ANR Appellants versus DELHIdevelopmentAUTHORITY Respondent T,PA 491/2013&CM Nos. 10566/2013,10567/2013 HARI CHANDSAINI&ANR .....Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + T.PA 492/2013^ CMN"s-10569/2013,10570/2013 KRISHANKUMARSHARMA&ANR Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + , T.PA 555/2013^ CM No. 11893/2013 IPANo.479/2013andconnectedmatters .. n RAM PRATAP& ANR, Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent ^ 558/2013&CM Nos. 11897/2013. • RAMU & ANR. Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent ^ 559/2013&CM Nos. 11919/2013.11920/?,nn RAJESHKUMAR&ANR + Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY ....^Respondent LPA 560/2013&rivr Nos. 11927/7.013. OM PRAICASPI& ANR • Appellant versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent LPA 561/2013& CM No. 11923/2m^ SANJAYAGGARWAL&ANR. Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent ^ LPA 132/2016&riM Nos. 7344/7.016.7345/7.m(i - . versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmatters Page 3 ofJH + T,PA 200/2015 LILARAM Appdlant versus ESTATEOFFICER-II DDA &ANR Respondents + T,PA 75/20n&CM Nos. 3683/2017,3684/2017 RAMESHCFIANDSAINI&ANR Appellants versus" • DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent • + T,PA 668/2016&CM Nos. 44900/2016,44902/2016 NATHUSINGH&ANR Appellants versus. •, DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + T,PA 4/2017^ CM Nos. S6/2017,57/2017,58/2017 DINESHKUMAR&ANR Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMEnVaUTHORITY Respondent + T;PA 669/2016&CM Nos. 44910/2016.44912/2016 MAHESHKUMAR&ANR Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent ' + WP.fn 504iranu & cm Nos. 10061/?.OI4, 10062/2014, 10063/2014 RAJESHKUMAR&ANR versus ^ ' Page 4 of38 LPA No.'i79/2013andconnectedmatters DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + W.P.(-a 5790/?.ni^ , CHHOTELAL Petitioner versus theDELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY&ORS...Respondents + w.p.ro tara chand Petitioner versus THE DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY&ORS • Respondents + W,Ez£Q_5W^ nathuram • . , Petitioner versus THE DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY&ORS.Respondents + M-(C) 5808/201^ kishanlal Petitioner versus theDELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY&ORS. Respondents fljereinafterreferredto as Groun 'A' ^ ^ CM Nn..^ ^';/2017. RAJ PAL • Appellant versus DDA R.espondenl: ^ 3/2017 CM No... SV9.017,54/2017 LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmatters i--""--•=°ni3r-TrTTr-T-, , Page 5 of3S BUDHRAM Appellant versus . DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 5/2017 & CM Nos. 62/2017. 63/2017, 64/2017 GIAS RAM & ORS Appellants versus . ^ DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 7/2017 & CM Nos. 69/2017. 70/2017, 71/2017 LAXMINARAYAN Appellant versus " Respondent + LPA 8/2017 & CM Nos. 75/2017. 76/2017, 77/2017 KAILASHCHAND ' Appellant versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent -LPA 10/2017 & CM Nos. 81/2017. 82/2017. 83/2017 SANJEEVCHAUHAN ' • Appellant versus DDA Respondent + T,PA 11/2017 & CM Nos. 84/2017. 85/2017. 86/2017 CHHATARSINGH • Appellant versus Respondent + T.PA 1^2/2017& CMNo's.146/2017.147/2017.148/2017 — ; Z~~~ Pase 6 of38 LPA No.479/2013 ami connected matters u RAM SINGHSAINI&ANR ./.-.Appellants versus DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondeni, LPA 65/2017&CM Nos. .3t.S0/7.0i7,^61/2017. RAM BHOOLI ... " , Appellant versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent 68/20.17&CM Nns. .^^^3/2017.33S^/7.ni7.3386/2017 CHIDDARAM ah .Appellant versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY 'Respondent ^ ^^0/2017&CM Nos. 3389/2017.3301/2017.3392/7,017 MOHANLAL ' ,, Appellant versus DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent 71/2017&CM Nos. 3393/2017.33Q^/2017;3396/2017 JAIPALSINGHDECEASEDTHRLR ,Appellant versus Respondent -LPA 72/2017&CM Nos. 3397/2017.3399/2017.3400/2017 DINESHCHAND . 1, , ; Appellant versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent •*" LPA 73/2017&CM Nn^. 3401/2017..^403/2017.MDdnmy U'simnrx! l.P/1 No.479/2013andconnectedmatters Page 7 0/38 ANOOP SINGH - " Appellant versus Respondent Chereinafterreferred to as ^Group 'B' cases) Present: Mr. AmitKumarwith Mr. KumarAbhishek,Advocatesfor Appellant in LPA Nos. 479/2013, 481/2013, 482/2013, 483/2013, 484/2013,.. 485/2013, 488/2013, 489/2013, 490/2013, 491/2013, 492/2013; 132/2016, 668/2016, 669/2016, 2/2017, 3/2017, 4/2017, 5/2017, 7/2017 8/2017, 10/2017, 11/2017, 12/2017, 65/2017, 68/2017, 70/2017, 71/2017, 72/20,17, 73/2017, 75/2017 & WPC Nos.' 5041/201'4, Mr S.N. Gupta,Adv. for appellantsin LPA Nos. 555/2013,558/2013, 559/2013,560/2013and'561/2013 Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate along with Dheeraj Bhardwaj,' Advocatefor Appellantin LPANo.200/2015. Mr. U.M. Tripathi,Advocatefor Petitionerin WPC Nos. 5041/2014, 5790/2016,5805/2016&5806/2016. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for respondent/DDA in LPA Nos.479/2013,481/2013, 482/2013, 483/2013,484/2013, 485/2013, 488/2013, 489/2013, 490/2013, 491/2013, 492/2013, 555/201j, 558/2013, 559/2013, 560/2013, 561/2013, 200/2015, 132/2016, 668/2016,669/2016,2/2017,3/2017,4/2017,5/2017,7/2017,8/2017, 10/2017, 11/2017, 12/2017, 65/2017, 68/2017, 70/2017, 71/2017, 72/2017', 73/2017, 75/2017 &WPC Nos. 5041/2014, 5790/2016, 5805/2016,5806/2016&5808/2016. Mr Dhanesh Relan: swith Ms. Isha Garg, Advocates for «:po"d»t/DDA in LPA Nos.200/2015. 132/2016., 668/2016. LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmaitevs ™0I7 •Mr. Sanjp^ Sabharwal with Mr. Hem Kumar. Advocates for lespondent/DDAin LPA No,668/2016. Mr Anin Birbal,Advocatefor respondent/DDAin LPA Nos 2/->OI7 5/2017.7/2017.8/2017, 10/2017.12/2017,65/2017&70/2017 71/2^7"" respondent/DDAin LEA Nos.4/2017& CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICEVIPINSANGHI HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEDEEPASHARMA JUDGivrENT DEEPASHABMd/T

¶1We proposeto disposeofthese 36 appealsand 5-writ petitionsvide this commonordersince in all thesematters,theissuesraisedare identical. •2. The lands in dispute were leased out to two-differentSocieties. namely, ;heel lOjuranjaCooperativeMilk Producei-sSociety Limited and Delhi PeasantsCooperativeMultipurposeSocietyLimited. AH the matters relatmg to land allotted to .Iheel Khuranja Cooperative Milk Producers SocietyLimitedare grouped in Group "A" and the mattersrelatmgto land allotted to Delhi Peasants CooperativeMultipurposeSociety Limited are groupedin Group'B'. Brieffacts in Group 'A'

¶3An Agreementwas executedby the GovernmentofIndia in favourof le Delhi Impiovement Irust (hereinafterreferred to tis "the DIT") on

31.03,1937with regard to administrationof certainproperties,which were LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmattars' Page ')of38 Ly^S-.TTT.n.Tgr.'SI placed at the disposal of DIT, ^nd was termed as the Nazul Estate. On

14.03.1950,Governmentof India, Ministry of Rehabilitationconveyed its decision to the effect that all the plots in Jhil Khuranjia, which were • previouslyoccupiedby MuslimGhosisand whichwerethen lyingvacantor' were unauthorisedlyoccupied, would be allotted by the DIT to the Jhil KhuranjiaMilk ProducersCo-operativeSociety Ltd., for being allottedto . displaced persons who are milk producers and who had enrolled memselvesas Membersofthe Societyand thosewho agreeto abide by the • conditionsspecifiedin the said communication.The terms of allotmentsof plots to the Jhil KhuranjiaMilk ProducersCo-operativeSociety,inter aha, providedthat the plots would be'givenonly for alease for aperiod of 90 years. The Societyhad to pay to DIT an existentrent ofRs. 2/- per annum, subjectto the enhancement. It also providedthatthe periodof lease for all Nazul'grazingland' underthe trustbe leasedfor grazing&fodder;the first instancewould be 5years with an optionto the Societyto renew the lease for afurtherperiodof 10 years each. Subsequently, on 22.03.1950, the DIT was called upon to take immediatenecessaryactionwith regard to allotmentof all vacant plots of land in Jhil ICliuranjiato the Jhil IChuranjiaMilk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. on the terms and conditions contained in letter dated

14.03.1950. Requestwas also made to lease out Nazul grazingland undei the Trust(DIT) in and nearJhilKhuranjia,including,landbelongingto U.P., CanalDepartmentso long as its managementis withDIT.

¶5TheDITpassedthe resolutionon the subjectof"AllotmentofLand in Jhil Kiuranjiato Jhil IChuranjiaMilkProducersCo-operativeSocietyLtd." LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmatters Page 10of3S on 25.05.1950. This resolutioncontainedtiie terms of allotmentas were containedin GovernmentNotificationdatecll4.03.1950,

¶6The Naziiiqandmeasuring7938 Bigha 12 Biswa in Jheel Khuranja and ChiragahaSouthwas givenon leaseto JheelKhuranjaCooperativeMilk Producers Society Limited by the DIT vide.-Resolution'No.-l03 dated

25.05.1950. Land measuring 2660 Bigha 14 Biswa belonging to U.P. IirigationDepartment, was also allotted to the Society. On 20.04.1962, possessionof 2660 Bigha 14 Biswa was surrenderedto the U.P. Irrigation Departmentand, thereafter,only an area ofalandcomprising,of4380 Bigha remainedwith the Society. This land was leased out to the Society for its •members, mcludmgthe appellantsand the writ petitioners.After the Delhi DevelopmentAct,.1957 (hereinafterreferredto as "the DD Act") came into force, the land under the managementofthe DIT came to vest in the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority(hereinafterreferredto as "the DDA") by virtue of Section60(2)(d)ofthe DD Act and by virtueofSection22 ofthe DD Act, the Nazul lands, which were property of the Central'Government, were placedat the disposalofDDA for the purposeofdevelopment.DDA issued two letterson 16.10.1967to the Society,for handoverthe possessionof the land and also to deposit the arrears of land revenue' amounting to' Rs.2,71,957.48. The Society filed a Suit No.326/1970 for declaration, mandatory and perpetual injunction thereby seeking declaration that terminationof the. lease was illegal, and also seekinginjunctionto restrain the DDA from evicting it and claim arrears of rent. On 24.05.1971,the Society gave up .its reliefof declarationand confineditselfto the reliefof injunction.The suitwas dismissedon the groundthat the suit for injunction LPA No.479/2013and connectedmatters Page II 0/38 alone was not maintainableafter the relieffor declarationwas abandoned, since the relieffor injunctionhad emanatedfrom the reliefof declaration. • Againstthis order,the Societypreferredan appeal which was registeredas RFA No.250/r971. During the hearing of the appeal, the DDA on

26.07.1977gavean undertakingto the Courtthat it wouldnot dispossessthe , Society, except under the provisionsof the Public Premises (Eviction ot UnauthorisedOccupants)Act, 1971 (hereinafterreferredto as ^the PP Act'). . •iriis undertakingwas acceptedby the Societyand the appeal was disposed of on those terms.

¶7Thereafter,DDA proceededto take action under the PP Act against the Society.NoticesunderSections4and 7ofthe PP Act in the year 1983-• 84 were issued to the Society for vacation of the land. However, the proceedingswere droppedby DDA againstthe Society,when informedthat the Societywas not in possessionofthe land.

¶8Thereafter,notices under Section 4 of the PP Act were issued to. vi^rious occupants of the land. The Estate Officer issued the show-cause noticesto the occupants.The evictionorderswere passed.The said eviction • orders dated 29.01.2002 were-.challengedbefore this Court in CWP No.3364/2002and the Courtvide order dated 19.11.2004directedthe DDA to implead the .Society as a party to the eviction proceedings. After impleadmentof the Society,the Estate Officerpassed the evictionorders dated01.08.2007againstthe Society.It was challengedby way of an appeal before the Districtand Sessions,,Judge. The learned District and Sessions. Judge vide order dated 01.09.2009set aside the orderpassed by the Estate Page 12 of 3.S LPA No.479/2013and connectedmatters- . Officeron the groundthat the descriptionof land was not mentionedin the order.

¶9The EstateOfficersthereafteragain passed the evictionorders dated

17.12,2012,07.01.2013,28.01.2013.17,01.2013,_18.12.2012,14,01 2013 in all the cases subjectmatterofthe above LetterPatentAppeals (LPA's)of Group 'A'. The said orderswere upheldby the Districtand SessionsJudge on 23.02.2013,07.03.2013,23.03.2013and 25.02.2013.These orderswere Challenged before the learned S.ngle .ludge in tl,e writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) 1959/2013, W,P,(C) 1928/2013. W.P.(C) 251.8/2013, WP(C) - 1969/2013,W:P,(C) 1945/2013, W.P.(C) 2517/2013.,W.P.(C) 2516/2013^ •.(C) 1979/2013, W.P.(C) 1948/2013, W.P.(C) 2519/2013, WP(C)

30.5/2«3,W.P.(C) 2792/2013. W.P.(C) 2953/2013. W.P,(C) 2965/2013; •.( ) 3577/2013. W.P.{C) 8665/2014, W,P.(C)1598/2016. W.P.(C) 1637/2016, W.P.(C)1597/2016 and W.P,(C) 1758/2016. All the writ pet.t.onswere dismissedby the learned SingleJudge by acomtnon orders ated24.05.20,3,..6.02.2016and 29.02.2016.Thesaidordersare intpugned oie us in these LPA s. In the writ petitionbearingW.P..(C) 5041/2014 the order ofDistrictJudge dated 07.03.2013,wherebythe learnedDistrict J ge has upheld the order of the Estate Officer, is under challenge. In W.P.(C)5790/2016,W.P.(C) 5805/2016,W.P.(C) 5806/2016and W.P (C) 5808/2016,the writpetitionershave directlycome beforethis Courtagainst tie orderofEstateOfficerdated 17.01,2013,withoutavailingoftheirright to appealbeforetheDistrictJudgeunderSection9ofthe PP Act, LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmatters Page 13 ofJS Brief Facts in Group 'B' Cases

¶10In Group 'B' categoryof cases, the Governmentland in disputewas allottedto Delhi PeasantsCooperativeMultipurposeSocietyLimitedby-the DIT.

¶11The briefcommon facts as-disclosedby the appellantsin these cases , that in 1949,the Societywas allottedagriculturalland measuring13,344-bighas in village Patparganj Shamspur, Jatwara Kalan South, Gaonwala, MohammadKhan Wala, JhilnmilTahirpurSouth,JhilmilTahipurNorth and • Murgi Kliana(hereinafterreferredto as "the land"),on leaseholdbasis foi a period of 5years by the DIT vide the lease executedbetweenthe Society• and the DIT.. The Society allotted the said land to its members lor cultivation.The lease was extendedin the year 1956 and again in 1961. In respect of certain bighas of land, DDA - who is the successor of DIT, sought cancellationof the lease deed on 06.10.1967and 31.07.1967,and asked the Society to handover the possession of the land. Thereafter,a ^ solution N-0.6 dated 30.04.1973 was passed by the DDA, whereby it proposedto executethe lease deeds in favour of individualcultivators.The Societywas askedto clearits arrears and ademandletterto this effectwas issued.Thereafter,the Societyallegesto have clearedall the arrears.Notices under the PP Act were issued by the Estate Officer to the nidividual cultivatorsand the evictionorders were passed in the year 1991-1992.The orderswere challengedin appealbeforethe DistrictJudge.The matterswere remandedback to the Estate.Officer.The evictionproceedingswere again • startedby the DDA in the year 2004, and evictionorders were passed on

01.08.2007for vacationof the land. This order was challengedbefore the Page 14of 38 LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmatters AppellateCourt of DistrictJudge. Tlie matterwas again remanded back to the Estate Officer. Tlie final orders were passed by the-Estate Officeron

31.01.2014,03.02.2014.06.02.2014.07.02.2014. 18.02.2014.03.04.2014.

24.03.2014, 04.04.2014 and 24.06.2014 respectively.Tliose orders were challenged before the District Judge. The appeals were dismissed on

01.04.2014,31.03.2014, 04.07.2014, 15.09.2014, 16.09.2014,07.10.2014 and 14.10.2014.These orders ofthe DistrictJudge were challengedbefore the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.8307/2016, 9059/2016, 9063/2016, 9064/2016, 9065/2016. 9085/2016, 9086/2016, 9087/2016, 9105/2016,9110/2016, 9111/2016, 9113/2016, 9117/2016. 9118/2016, 9n9/2016, 9121/2016, 9122/2016, 9137/2016, 9139/2016, 9140/2016, 9143/2016.Videcommonimpugnedorderdated21.10.2016,all the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. This mipugnedorderhas been challengedby the appellantsbeforeus on various grounds.

¶12Both the parties have argued the matter at length,and have also submittedtheirwrittensubmissions. . 13. LearnedCounsels in Group 'A' and Group 'B' cases have confined their challenge-tothe impugnedorders on two legal g,-oimdsand have not disputed the findings of fact returned by the Estate Officer, which were confirmed by the DistrictJudge on their appeal, and subsequentlyby the learnedSingleJudge in the writpetitions.The first groundraised is that the learnedSingleJudgeshave failed to appreciatethat appellantsand the writ petitionersare the.tenants in respect of the portions of.the'landsin their occupationand possessionand. secondly,that the DDA cannot evict them LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmatters Page IS 0/38 under the PP Act which is applicableonly to the unauthorizedoccupants, and they beingtenantscannotbe evictedunderthe PP Act wliichmaizesthe order of the Estate Officervoid,,having been passedwithout any authority' andjurisdiction.

¶14It is arguedthat in Dr. SuhasH. PophaleV5. OrientalInsuranceCo. Ltd and its Estate Officer, 2014 (2) SCALE 223, the Supreme Court has-_..jrlyheld that tlie occupantsof publicpremises,who are in occupation-prior to 16.09.1958, i.e. prior to tlie PP Act coming into force are not-governed by the PP Act, since the Act has no retrospectiveeffect. The• Supreme Court has further held that the right availableto the appella^its under a State Statutebefore 16.-09.1958(the date on which the PP Act was enforced)does not get extinguishedon passingofthe PP Act. Such persons. cannotbe evictedunderthe PP Act. It is argued that at the time when lease was executedby the DIT, the provisionsof Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and . PunjabTenants(SecurityofTenure)Act, 1950 were applicableto the lands in Delhiby virtueofDelhiLawsAct, 1912, as amendedin 1915.It is argued as per Section 4(5) of the; Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Punjab-Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act, 1950, they are the tenants under those Acts and can be evictedonly in terms ofthe said Acts and not underthe PP Act. Reliance is placed on paras 59 and 64 of Dr. Shuhas H. Pophale (supra),whichare reproducedas under:- "5P All those personsfalling within the definition of a tenantoccupyingthepremisespriortheretowillnot come under the ambit of the PublicPremisesAct and cannottherefore, be said to be persons in "unauthorizedoccupation". Whatever rightssuchpriortenants, membersoftheirfamiliesor heirs of LPA No.479/2013and connectedmatters Page 16of 3.8 tenantsor all of those who fall within • ofatenantunder the BombayRentAct have, are continuedunder the MaharashtraRent ControlAct 1999 if ^resoZTtf "• ^^'i^'ired, thai will have to be MI » Bombay Rent Act or MaharashtraRent ControlAct. 1999 Ifperson concernedhas come in qcQupaiionsubsequentto such date, then ofcoursethe - PublicPremisesAct, 1971 willapply

¶64Asfaras the evictionofunauthorisedoccupantsfrompublic P'^Lses IS concerned undoubtedly it is covered under the u ic PremisesAct, but it is so coveredfrom 16-9-1958 or from the laterdate when thepremisesconcerned-becomepublic premises by virtue of the premises concernedvesting into a government company or a corporation like LIC or the TeZfd'l rf' T companies like '^hT n ' '^''^^Soriesof occupantsof thesepubliccorporationswho gefexcludedfrom the coverage f Zf wS occupationsinceprL y : becoming applicable, are clearly^outside the coverage of the Act Secondly those who come moccupation, thereafter, but prior to the date of the premisesconcernedbelongingto agovernmentcorporationor acompanyandare coveredunderaprotectiveprovisionofthe State Rent Act, like the appellant herein, also get excluded Until such date, the Bombay Rent Act and its successor MaharashtraRent Control Act will continue to govern the ''^^"y^shipbetweenthe occupantsofsuchpremiseson the one hand andsuchgovernmentcompaniesandcorporationson the ei. Hence, with respectto such occupantsit willnot be open to such companies or corporationsto issue notices.,and to pioceedagainstsuch occupantsunderthe PublicPremisesAct andsuchproceedingsMill be voidandillegalSimilarlyit will be open for such occupants of these premises to seek declaration of their status, and other rights .such: as ransmission-ofthetenancy to the legal heirs, etc. under the Bombay Rent Act or its successorMaharashtraRent Control ct, and also to seek protective reliefs in the nature of injunctionsagainstunjustifiedactionsor ordersofevictionifso aaaaara-jirjLiuec LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmatters Page I7ofJS Dossed by approachingtheforumprovidedunder the StateAct which alone will have the jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings." '

¶15It is further argued that in Rama Naml vs. State ofHaryana, AIR 1982, P&H 26. tlie DivisionBenchofPunjaband HaryanaHigh Courthas'- also clearlyheld that the rights of atenant created under Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Punjab Tenants (Securityof Tenui-e)Act, 1950 do not get ...nguishedon passingofPunjabPublicPremisesand Land (Evictionand RentRecovei7)Act. 1959,the provisionsofwhicharepartmateriawith the, PP Act. It is arguedthatthe sameprincipleapplieshere, and the DDA could not have sought eviction under the PP Act and eviction orders are thus nullity.It is submittedthat the s^ne principleshave been reiteratedby the SupremeCourtinM/sBandBoxPrivateLimitedvs. EstateOfficer,Punjab andSinclhBank, 2014 (16) SCC 321.

¶16Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. JagmUtarSain Bhagat and Ors. v. Dir. Health Services,Haryana and |x., 2013 10 (SCC)136,particuiarlywithreferenceto pai-a9and 10 ofthe said judgment,it is arguedthat once it is found that the forum which had •passed an order had no jurisdiction,the decisionbecomes irrelevantand unenforceable/in-executable.It is furtherai'guedthatalegalpleachallengmg tirejurisdictionofthe authorityto pass an order,can be raisedat any stage and the learnedSingleJudgeshave erred in holdingthat the plea regarding non-applicabilityofthe PP Act cannotbe takenat alaterstage.It is further argued that since the appellantsand writ petitionersare challengmgthe applicability"of the PP Act and, thus, challengingthe jurisdictionand authorityof the Estate Officer^topass evictionorders under the PP Act, Page IS ofSS LPA No.479/2013and connectedmatters whichpurelyalegal issue,the same could be raisedat any stage.It is argued that in the case ofCantonmentBoardandAnr. vs. ChurchofNorthIndia, . (2012) 12 SCO 573, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the lack of inherentjurisdictionis basic and fundamental,and the validity of an order can be challengedat any stageon the groundoflack ofinherentjurisdiction, even in executionor collateralproceedings.It is argued that the eviction orders being void-having been passed by an authority who had no jurisdictionoverthe matter,are liableto be setaside.

¶17On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA submits that the PP Act deals with the evictionof unauthorizedoccupants from the properties belonging to the government..The claim of the -appellants/writpetitionersthat they are protectedunder the Punjab Acts is highlymisplaced.The appellantsand writpetitionersare not protectedunder any State Laws on expiry of leases by efflux of time. On expiiy of the said leases, the appellants and writ petitionersremained neither statutory, nor contractualtenants,thus, becameunauthorizedoccupants.

¶18Learned counsel submits that the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 has no application to the present case. The land in dispute - occupied by the appellantsand writ petitionersis not governedby these Acts. The Punjab 1enancy Act, 1887, applies to the Union Territoryof Delhi as described in ScheduleA ofthe Delhi Laws Act, 1912. As per this Schedule,the Unioi Ten-itoryofDelhicmiprisesthatportionofthe DistrictofDelhi, comprising the Tehsil of Delhi and the Police Station of Mehrauli. Further, vide Schedule-1 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1915, 65 territorieswere includedin th(: Union Tenitory of Delhi. Learned counsel for the DDA draws our attentior LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmatlers . Page 19 of3 to the aspectthatthe land in questionfalls in the Nazul estateas describedin the Nazul Agreement, and is not part of the 65 villages as described in Schedule-I ofthe Delhi Laws. Act, 1915. Thus, the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, does not apply to the Nazul estate. Learned counsel further submits that Section4(5)(d)ofthe Act definesatenantas -apersonwho holds land-underanotherperson, and is, or butfor aspecialcontractwouldhe, liable, jay rentfor that land to that other person; but it does not include-: ~

(d) a person who takes from the [Government] a lease of-unoccupiedlandfor the purposeofsublettingif. Thus, in light of the said provision,the appellantsand writ petitionersdo not stand as tenants undei the PunjabTenancyAct, 1887. .

¶19Learnedcounselfor the DDA furtherdraws our attentionto Section3, ofthe PunjabPublicPremisesand Land (Evictionand Rent Recovery)Act, 1959 wherein "Un-authorisedoccupation of public premises has been explainedas under: "For thepurposesofthisAct-Apersonshall he deemedto be in unauthorizedoccupationofanypublicpremises.

(a) where he has whetherbefore or after the commencem.ent ofthisAct enteredintopossessionthereofothemisethan under andinpursuanceofany allotment,leaseor grant,

(b) where he, being an allottee, lease or grantee, has, by reason of the determinationor cancellationof his allotment, lease or grant in accordance with the terms in that behalf therein contained, ceased, whether before or after the commencementof this Act, to be entitledto occupy or hold suchpublicpremises. LPA No.479/2013and connectedmatters t^'^ZrVT"" "'"'Py publicpmnise, has, whetherbeforeor afterthe commencementofthisAct- '

(i) subletin contwventionofthe termsofallotment,leaseor grant, withoutthepermissionofthe State Governmentor of any otherauthoritycompetenttopermitsuchsub-lettingthe wholeor anypartofsuchpublic,premises;

(li) otherwiseacted in contraventionof any of the tenns expressor implied, under which he is authorisedto occupy such public premises. Explanation: Forpurposesof Clause (a), aperson shall no! ZZl ° ®^'Uottee, lessee or grantee."

¶20By virtueofArticle254(1)oftlie Constitutionofthe India. 1950, the law madeby Parliamenton asubjectprevailsoverthe Statelaws. Thus, the PP Act would overrideany other state enactmentmade in respect of the lands of the Union of India. Thus, the appellantsand writ petitionersare unauthonzed.occupantswithinthe meaningofsection2(g) ofthe PP Act on thesaid Uniongovernmentlandsince 1965 i.e. sincetheexpiryofthe lease.

¶21Learned counsel submits that Ashoka MarketingLtd. &Am. v. Punjab NationalBank &Ors., AIR 1991 SC 855, holds-that when a premises falls within the ambit of both - the PP Act and the Delhi Rent-Control Act (hereinafterreferred to as DRC Act), the PP Act shall have overridingeffectvis-4-visthe DRC Act. Thus, learnedcounselsubmitsthat apersoninductedas atenantin respectofapublicpremise,'whose tenancy has expired, cannot invoke the protectionof the State enactmentsviz. the PunjabTenancyAct, 1887 and die Punjab TenantsAct, 1950. The PP Act LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmailers Page 21 of38 overridesthe State Acts in relationto premises falling within the ambit of . both the enactments.

¶22Learnedcounsel further submitsthat the pleathat the appellantsand • the writ petitionersare the tenants under the Punjab Acts was not taken at any stage, and no evidencehas been adduced by t-lie appellants and writ' petitionersto prove that the land in their occupationwas governed by the ]' _]ab Acts. The said issue is amixed questionof fact and law, and camiot be raisedfor the first time at this stage. The submissionthat the appellants/ petitionersweretenantsunderthe PunjabActs is thus a fallacy.

¶23Learned counsel for the DDA submits that the decision in Dr. Suhas H. Pophale(supra)is not applicableto the facts ofthis case, sincethe facts in that case were entirely different.In Dr. Suhas H. Pophale (supra),the' propertyin disputewas a privatepropertyon which the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 was applicable. There was a valid tenancy within the meaning of BombayRent Act, 1947, until thepremisesin questionwere,convertedinto .p^pcpremiseswithinthemeaningofSection2(e)ofthe PP Act-whichwas done by way of a merger. In this,case, one Mr Eric Vollerwas a tenant of Indian MercantileInsuranceCompany. Mr Eric Voller executeda licensed agreementin favour of the appellanttherein,for aperiodof two years, and put him in exclusivepossessionof the property concerned.The erst-while insurancecompanydid not objectto the said act and acceptedthe appellant• as a tenant for residentialpurposes and started acceptingthe rent directly from the appellant.Subsequently,the said insurancecompany was merged on 01.01.1974in the OrientalInsuranceCompany-whichis a Government Company.The managementofthe Companywas taken over by the Central LPA No.479/2013 and connected matters Page 22 of38 a •V . . • M Governmentw.e.f, 13 05.1Q71 a-Courthadprotected.herightHfZr' f-. Apex courthcM that^ ^e, canno, be destroyedby eivino ret nn . ^ retrospectiveeffect cn fi.. PP Act, However,i" thepresentcase, the disputed °''«« 'tepropertyofthe CentralGovernment Tl ,• to the facts ofthe present '' ^PP'i'^^bk -«itr :::;rr undertheprovisionsofthe PP AM, 197 given by tlie DDA the annell 'j-undertaldng ••« 0.. "I" r- *™•"• -• had acceptedthatthey could be dis ™''Petitioners Act and, thatis wiiy flieyhad Provisionsofthe PP «-ttheyctnotbe evictedt.derthe PP P'^ earlierwrit petitionN0.3797/,oq, .. ' " an wterein the Jheel"KhuranjaCoopirati!!MUc was respondentNo 2and th f • reducers Society Limited '0 use and occupy the land through the said So 't " continueto occupythe saune-h • . "> thattileSocietydidnothavea 7-claiming through the Societrellirr7'^' 23 ()f3S

¶25Itis furtherarguedthat in the Group 'B' cases,the appealfiled against ; the evictionorders passed in respect of certainpersons occupyingthe land allottedto Delhi Peasants CooperativeMultipurposeSociety Limited, was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court vide ordei dated•

17.11.2015in the casetitledas BrijPal &Ors. V5. DDA, LPA No. 810/2015. It is submittedthat these findings are bindingon this Court on the principle• ( "^"iOnstructiveres judicata, since they are relating to the same lease agreements,with the same Societies,throughwhom the appellantsand the petitionerin thosetwo cases were claimingtheirrights, and tkoughwhom , the appellantsand the writ petitionersbefore this Court are claimingtheir rights.

¶26It is further argued that the learned Single Judges have rightly dismissedthe writ petitionsof the appellants,wherebythey had challenged the orderofthe DistrictCourtpassedin appellatejurisdiction.AWrit Court certainly does not sit as an Appellate Court, and exercises a limited iurisdictionofjudicialreview while assessingthe order of a Court below, l^ianceis placedon RohtashKumar v. DDA &Ors, 2003 VI AD (Delhi) 245, in this regard.

¶27It is arguedthat the presentappealsand writ petitionshave no merit, ajnd the impugnedorders do not sufferfrom any illegalityand the same are liableto be dismissed.It is furthersubmittedthat the writ petitions-which havebeenfiled againstthe orderofthe EstateOfficer,withoutfirst availing the alternateremedy of filing an appeal, are also liableto the dismissedon thesegroundsas-well. ' • LPA No.479/20If and connectedmatters Page 24 of 3'8 t

¶28We have given our thoughtfulconsiderationto the rival contentions and have perusedthe recordand consideredtlie decisionsrelied upon by the learned counsels.

¶29As aforesaid, learned counsels for the appellants and the writ petitionershave confinedtheir arguments only on two legal issues; firstly that the appellantsand writ petitionerswere tenants since the inceptionof the leasegrantedto the Societiesby the DIT underthe provisionsofPunjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Punjab lenants (Security of Tenure) Act, 1950, ^ whichwere applicablero the territoriesofDelhi, and hence theirrights are protected under these Acts and they cannot be evicted under the PP Act. , Secondly,the PP Act has no retrospectiveapplication.

¶30The admittedand undisputedfacts are that the leases were createdin favour ot the Societiesfor its members and, therefore,the appellantsand writ petitionerscan claim theirright of occupationin respectof the land in their possessionand occupation,only through the Societies'and.therefore, the appellantsand writpetitionersin Group 'A' cases are bound by the ordej-of this Court in Ri^A No.250/1971which was disposedof'by this Court in teims of undertakingofDDA to take actiononly as perthe provisionsofthe PP Act.'It IS pertinentthatthe Societyagreedto the.undertakingofDDA and ,did not press its appeal. It cannotnow turn around and.challengethe action of.DDA underthe PP Act while earlierthey did not opposethe undertaking ofDDA to resort to the provisionsof the PP Act for gettingthem evicted trom the land in their occupation,Alterna.tively,since the appellants/writ petitionerswithdrewtheirRFA, and the originaljudgmentwas againstthem, LPA No.479/2013and connectedmatters Page 25 of3S they are bound by the same. -- However, since the appellants and writ petitionershave raisedthis plea, weproposeto deal with it on meritsas well.'

¶31It is an undisputedfact that the land in disputewas Governmentland when leased out to the Societies.The appellantsand writ petitionershave reUed on Section4(5) of PunjabTenancyAct, 1887 and argued that the said ' Act applies to Government land as well. The relevant Section reads as' I iv:- "4. Definition-In this Act, unlessthere issomethingrepugnant in the subject or context- •

(1) XXX XXX XXX

(2) XXX XXX XXX.

(3) XXX XXX XXX

(4) XXX XXX XXX

(5) "tenant" means a person M'ho holds land under another person, and is, or butfor a special contract would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that other person: but it does not include-

(a) XXX XXX XXX

(b) XXX XXX XXX

(c) XXX XXX XXX Yd) a person who takes from the ^fGovernm.entla lease of unoccupiedland for the purpose of siiblettimit": (emphasis supplied) LPA No.479/2013and connected matters Page 26 of3S . From readingtheprovisionofSection4(5)(d)oftirePunjabTenancy Aot, .t .s apparentthatthisAct is not applicableto the leasesexecutedby the Governnrentrejatitrgto Governmentunoccupiedlands, where the san,ehas een allottedfor theputposeofsub-lettingit. It is an undisputed&ct thatthe andmdisputewas unoccupiedland,leasedoutto the Societieslx,ruse ofits membersand theSocietieswereprecludedfrom sub-lettingit.

¶33PunjabTenancyAct, 1887appliesto thatpartofthe Union Territory ofDelh. which-hasbeen specifiedin Schedule-AofDelhi Laws Act 19P whtchwere TehsilofDelhiandpolicestationofMehrauliand subsequently 65 more villageswere added to this list. No evidenceis producedto show .that lands mquestion formed part of the Tehsilof Delhi, or was part of pohce station of Mehrauli. or were part of 65 villages which were subsequentlyadded to the list in Schedule-I by aproclamadonissued in 1915. Duringargumentsalso our attentionwas not drawn by the appellants and the writ petitionersto any document to show that lands in question which was propertyof Union Government,was broughtinto the ambit of provisionsof Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Punjab Tenants (Securityof Tenui-e)Act, 1950. The operationofthis Act was extendedto that part of land ofthe Union TerritoryofDelhi which is mentionedin Schedule-Aof the Delh,Laws Act, 1912. Therefore,it is apparentthatonlythe land which was partofSchedule-A,was governedby the provisionsofPunjabTenancy Act, 1887 and Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act. 1950. The appellants and writ petitionershave failed to establish the-fact that the provisionsofPunjabTenancyAct, 1887was extendedto the land in dispute, which indisputablybelongs to GovernmentofIndia. The said issue beinga mixed questionoffact and law could, and shouldhave been agitatedat the LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmaUers Page 27 of38 original stage of the proceedings, which the appellants/ writ petitioners failed to do. It is too late in the day for them to raise the same at this stage-andthey cannotbe permitted to do so. The factualgroundworkhas not been laid by the appellants/petitionersfor them to urge that the lands in question are covered by the aforesaid Punjab'Act.

¶34Turning to the applicability of the Punjab Tenants (Security of ."^-"'lure)Act, 1950 (referred to as Punjab Tenants (ST) Act), we find that even the said Act has no relevance to the present case. As per Section 1(3) of the Punjab Tenants (ST) Act, it applies to ''entire land held in Delhi by a landowner except-

(i) the land held byan occupancytenant;

(ii) the land reservedunder theprovisionsofthisAct; or

(iii) if such land, excluding the land held by an occupancy tenant, in aggregate area, does not exceed thepermissible limit'". The expression"landowner"as defined in Section 2(1) of Punjab I tenants (ST)-Act ''means a person defined as such in the Punjab Land RevenueAct, 1887, as applicable to Delhi." The Punjab Land Revenue Act defines "landowner'' in Section 3(2) as: "landowner does not include a tenant or an assignee of land revenue, but does not include a person to whom a holding has been transferred or an estate or holding has been let in farm., under this Actfor the recovery of an arrear of land revenue or a sum recoverable as such an arrear and every other person not herein before this clause mentioned M>ho is in possession of an estate or any share or portion thereof or in the enjoyment of anypart oftheprofits ofan estate. " LPA No.479/2013 and connected matters Page 28 of3S /

¶36Sincethe subjectland belongingto the Governmentwas leased out to Societies indisputably,the'Societiesas per the said definition cannol: be termedas land ownersofthe subjectpropertyand the appellantsand the writ petitionerscannotbetermedas tenantsunderPunjabTenants'(ST)Act. j7. a perusalof the Punjab Land RevenueAct shows that the same is a legislationwhichprimarilyseeksto providefor the makingand maintenance ol record-of-rightsin land, the assessmentand collection'of land revenue and othermattersrelatingto land and the liabilitiesincidentthereto.

¶38Section 48 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 is the charging provisionin respectofland revenue. The sameprovides-that:• All land, to whateverpurposeappliedandwhereversituateis liableto thepaymentofland-revenueofthe Governmentexcept such land as has been wholly exemptedfrom, that liaMWy by specialcontractwith the Governmentor by the provisionsof any lawfor the time beinginforce andsuch landas is included in the village site. Explanation—Forthe purposes of this sub-section the expression •Village site' shall have the same meaning as is assignedto the expression 'siteofa village'insection4. (1-A) Notwithstandinganything in subsection (1) land held by any person weather as a sole landowner or as a co-landownerin one or more holdings,or as a sole landownerand as a co-landownerin one or more holdingsin any estate shall be exemptedfrom the liabilityto the paym.entofland revenue, if- " 39, Land revenue is payableto the Government. It is payable by a land owner. Therewould be no questionolthe Governmentpayingland revenue on its own land, tojtself. Section48 and otherprovisionsof the Act leave LPA /Vo.479/2013andconnectednuitlers ' P(i<^e29 of38 no manner of doubt that the Government cannot be considered as a land owner for the puiposes of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Consequently,the Governmentcannotbe consideredas a land owner tor the purposesofthe PunjabTenantsAct. Pertinently,the definitionofthe "land owner" containedin the Punjab Land RevenueAct excludesa tenant. The appellants/writ petitioners,at-the highest, are claiming themselvesto be • ants since, admittedly, they are not the land owners. Thus, even otherwise,they cannotbe treatedas land ownerswithinthe definitionofthe said expressioncontainedin Section3(2) ofthe Punjab Land RevenueAct-. It is not eventhe case oftheappellants/writpetitionersthat they were either subjectedto land revenue or that they every paid any land revenue. Thus; the submissionofthe appellants/writpetitionersthatthey are coveredby the PunjabTenants(ST) Act has absolutelyno merit. It is also pertinentto note-that the protectiongrantedin respectofthe tenanciescovered by Section5 ofthe PunjabTenants(ST) Act is not availableto a tenant,who fails to pay rent regularlywithoutsufficientcause. As aforesaid,no materialhas been ced on record by the appellants/writ petitionersto show as to what was the rentthatthey were obligedtopay as tenants;whetherthey paid the same,' and; if so, when and how much; Thus, relianceplaced by the appellants/ writpetitionerson the PunjabTenants(ST) Act is misplacedand rejected.

¶40The argument of the appellants and writ petitioners,that since the Societieshad"sub-leasedthe propertyto its members, therefore,they were the tenantsofthe Societiesand-theirtenancyrightswere protectedunderthe State law governingthe tenancy rights, has no merit. From the facts on record, it is apparent that the land was allotted to the Societies foi its LPA No.479/2013 and connected matters - , A V members. Ifthe rightsofthe Societiesin questionwerenotprotectedby the .a.dtwo Punjab,ACS. the sub-lesseesthereundercouldobviouslynot claim ahigheror greaterprotection. The appellants/writpetitionersderivedtheir rightsonly from the two Societies,and thus, theirrights.are subjectto the limitationswhich boundthe said Societies. Pertinently,tlie appellantsand wnt petrtionershave even failed to produceany evidenceson record at the appiopnateforum to prove that tliey were payingrent to the Societies or thattheywerethetenantsofthe Societies. Ourattentionishotdrawnto any document which was proved on record to sustain their contention that . md,v.dualtenancyrights were createdin favour ofthe appellantsand writ petmonersby the DDA. The appellantsand writ petitionershave foiled in theirattemptto provethattheyweretenantson thelandin question.

¶41Even the State law which protectsthe rights ofthe tenants, i.e.. tlie DRC am does notgiveprotectionio them,sinceittoo excludesgovernment properties,and does not, in any event,applyto open land. •

¶42Section3(a)ofthe DRC Act. 1958 whichcat™into force with effect from 09.02.1959exemptsfrom its operationthe premisesbelongingto the Government. Thesameis reproducedas under.- shallapllX'•« thisAct

(a) to anypremisesbelongingto the Government <b)to(d)_ XXX XXX XXX"

¶43Although the appellants and the writ petitioners have failed to establishtheircontentionthat they were the tenants,it is argued ftat in the LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmatters Page 3! of3S case ofDr. Suhas H. Pophale(supra),the SupremeCourt has held that the tenancyrights of a person protectedunder the State Law before the PP Act was passed by the Parliament,do not get extinguishedon passingofthe PP Act. It is also the argumentofthe appellantsand writ petitionersthat since they were tenants, and not unauthorizedoccupants on 16.09.1958 when Parliament enforced the PP Act, their rights as. tenants do not get extinguishedand any action by the DDA under the said Act is illegal and wiuioutjurisdiction.

¶44Learned counsel for the DDA has countered the submission of the appellants/ writ petitioners by placing reliance on Ashoka Marketing (supra), wherein it has been held that in respectofGovernmentproperties, the DRC Act has no applicationand the PP Act has overridingeffect.

¶45After DD Act came into 'force on 30.12.1957, all the properties belongingto DIT, by virtue of Section 60 of DD Act, came to vest and • governedby the DDA. Therefore, in the year 1957 when the DD Act came force, the-lands in question came to vest in DDA and the property ouminuedto be the Governmentproperty.As aforesaid.Section3(a) ofDRC' Act clearlyexemptsfrom the operationofDRC Act any propertybelonging to the Government.

¶46Section2(e) of the PP Act definesthe 'publicpremises'which reads as under:- "2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

(e) "public premises " means— LPA No.479/2013 ami connected matters Page 32 ofSS fo

(1) XXX XXX XXX

(2) XXX XXX-XXX

(3) in relationto tm [NaUonalCapitalTerritoryofDelhi].-

(i) XXX xxx XXX Authority, Z be""'"'"'' Goven™e",,prope,tyfrom the . Obeg,"":ng..a,evenatthetimewhenthe leasewas ereated. ThePP Act becameoperativewith effectfrom 16 09 195S Ti-. ^ ^958. It empowersthe ownerofthe niiseb to get the '\inauthorized oecupants" of the pubhc p.em,sesevtotedthroughthe specialmeohani™devisedunder the PP Act' Secon2(g)ofthePP Actdefines '•unauthorisedoecupa,ion•as under , prefniseswithout authority'for such ^ ' the, continmnoe" occZatL M premises,afterthe authority'(wheieZyZaZ/ Othermode oftransfer)vnLr.11; ^ ^ ofgrant or any the premiseshas exDirednrh i f allowedto occupy wh^soexJ. ^ ^'^'-minedforanyreJon

¶48On Ifieterihinationof the lease nf n . .i Governmentproperty,all of those who^;^c^ingit becomeunauthorisedoccr^ants. ^eslpreme oocZIj TT occupatwi]usedipjPPAct and heldas under;- LPA No.4^dpandconirectedmatters =S5«2!!£3H^SSSS4SSjax==tea^ ) i; Pr/ffe33 of38 parts. In thefirst part the said expressionhas been definedto mean the occupation by any person of the Public premises withoutauthorityfor such occupation.It impliesoccupationby a person who has entered into occupation of any public premiseswithoutlawful authorityas well as occupationwhich M'as permissivea.t the inception but has ceased to be so. The second part of the definition is inclusive in nature and it expresslycovers continuance in occupationby any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was - ' allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. This part covers a case where a person had entered into occupation legally under valid authority but who continues in occupation after the authority under which he was put in occupationhas expired or has been determined. The words "whether by way of grant or any other mode oftransfer"in thispart ofthe definitionare wide in amplitudeand would cover a lease because lease is a mode of transfer under'the Transfer of Property) Act. The definition of unauthorisedoccupation containedin Section 2(g) of the PublicPremisesAct would, therefore,cover a case where a person has entered into occupation of the public premiseslegallyas a tenantunder a lease but whose tenancy has expiredor has been determinedin accordancewith law." ~(emphasis supplied)

¶49Thus, the definitionof unauthorizedoccupants includes any person who had entered into the public premisesunder an authoritygiven to him; but the saidauthorityeitherhas expiredor has been determined.

¶50Thus, on determinationof the lease by efflux of time, or otherwise, the appellants and writ petitioners became unauthorized occupants occupyingthe Governmentland. The Supreme Court Ashoka Marketing: case (supra)even went to the extentof holdingthafPP Aet has overriding PClgC34 Of3H' LPA No.479/2013mulconnectedmatters effect in respectof Governmentlands over State laws dealingwith tenancy rights, such as the DRC Act.

¶51Relianceplaced by the appellantsand writ petitionerson Dr. Suhas H. Pophale (supra) is misplaced, hi Dr. Suhas H. Pophale (supra), the SupremeCourttook note ofthe fact that the tenancy,at its inception,was createdby aprivateperson in respectofprivateproperty;which property was subsequentlyacquired by the Government. However, fects of these cases show that subjectpropertieswere Governmentpropertiesirom the inception,i.e. at the time ofgrantofleaseto the Societies,and continuedto remainso. Dr. SuhasH. Pophale(supra) is, therefore,not relevantfor this reason.

¶52Thereis no disputeto the fact that the leasein favourofthe Societies stood determinedin the year 1967. The claim of the appellant'sand the writ petitioner's-^thathey were tenants of the Societies,and were paying rentto themwas also rejected.The appellantsand writpetitionershave also failed to bring to the notice of this Court any evidence to prove their contentionthat they were tenants under the Societies..The facts show that the lease was created in favour of the Societiesfor the use'ofits members only and, therefore,on determinationof the lease, the Societiesas well as the peisonsclaimingthroughthe Societiesbecameunauthorizedoccupants of land.

¶53The decision in the case CantonmentBoard andAnr. (supra.) also does not help the-appellantsand writ petitioners.The SupremeCourt in this case has clearly held that the provisions of Section 106 and 107 of the LPA No.479/2013andconnectednuuters Page ^5 of IS TransferofPropertyAct are not applicablein the cases where the premises are coveredunderthe SpecialAct. The PP Act is SpecialAct.

¶54The appellantsand the writpetitionershave also reliedon the decision inithecase ofRamaNancl(supra).havepursuedthe decisionin the said case. The questionbeforethe Court in that case was, whetherthe tenant in respectof agriculturalland, which was subsequentlyacquiredby the State commentafter01.02.1955.shallbe governedby the provisionsofPunjab Securityof Land TenuresAct, .1953, and can claim protectionby virtue of • Section 16 read with Section 9 of the said Act and can avoid ejectment under the provisionsof Punjab TenancyAct, 1887. The DivisionBench of Punjab and liaryanaHigh Court, on the facts of that case, held that the• rights ofpetitionersas tenants thereon would not be affectedby virtue of. Section16 ofthe Act The Courthad noted Section16 ofPunjabSecurityof •' LandTenuresAct, 1953 whichwas asavingclause,and reads as under "16. Savingoftenanciesfrom effectofmalafide transfer. Sctve in the case of land acquired by the State Government under any law for the time being in force or by an heir by inheritance, no transfer or other dispositionof land effected after the f February. 1955, shallaffectthe rightsofthe tenant thereon under this Act. " It was on account of the saving clause, i.e. Section 16 of Punjab• Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 —which protects the tenants, whose, tenancywas createdbefore01.02.1955,thatthe Courtgave its decision.The • appellantsand writ petitionershave failed to establishtheir rights as tenant, under the Punjab SecurityofLand TenuresAct, 1953. The subjectproperty was always Governmentproperty and the appellants/writ petitionersare ' LPA No.479/2013andconnectedmailers Page36of38 (!'> .1. "T"••"••»«• •«•> IX """ """••"- 56,^ Admittediy.the evictionordersof EstateOfficersunder tlie PP Act agmnst some of the occupants of public premises claiming dieir r.ghts I'ougiJheei IChuranjaCooperativeMiil< ProducersSociety Limitedwere up^^edby the CoordinateBench ofthis CourtinS.,, DHan Kaur (supra). my, tie evictionorderspassed under the PP Act by'EstateOfficers against some of the occupants of public premises, claiming their rights ougi elhi Peasants CooperativeMultipurposeSociety Lim.ted, vver. uphe by the CoordinateBenchofthisCourtinBrljPal(supra)in LPA No. OlS, decidedon ,7.n.20I5.Thesetwo ordersofCoordinateBenches 0 his Court-mrespectofpropertyallottedto JheelKhuranjaCooperative Y roducers Society Limited and Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multipurposesocles Limited relate to the same properties which were alotted under the same agreements to these Societies, though were in oecupation of some other members of these Societies (other than the appellantsand the writ petitionersbefore us), are binding on us on the pnncples of constructiveresJud.cataand also on the principlethat the similarlyplacedpersonsshouldbe treatedalike. The appellantsand the wr.t petitionersbefore us are similarlyplaced persons and the earlierfindings given in respectofsimilarlyplacedpersonsare also bindingonthem LPA No.479/20l3amlconnectedmattars Page 37 of3S •e

¶57Thus, we find no illegahtyor infirmityin the impugnedorders. The appealsand the writpetitionshave no meritand are herebydismissedalong withthependingapplicationswith no orderas to costs.

¶58Interim orders dated 23d2.2013 and 03.01.2017stand vacated. The. appellantsandthe writpetitionersand any personclaimingthroughthem are herebydirectedto vacatethe land in theiroccupationand deliverpossession ^ji^inaperiodoftwo weeks from today. Ifthey fail to do so, they can be-evictedby the respondentsthereafterby resortto coercivemethods. JANUARY 31, 2018 LPA No.479/2013 and connected matters DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE) Page 38 of3S

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on; 31.01.2018 + LPA 481/2013 & CM Nos. 10532/2013,10533/2013 DHARAMBIR SINGH SAINI AND ANR Appellants versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...... Respondent + LPA 482/2013 & CM Nos. 10535/2013,10536/2013 JAI CHAND AND ANR Appellants versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 483/2013 & CM Nos. 10538/2013,10539/2013 PRITAM SINGH SAINI AND ANR Appellants versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 484/2013 & CM Nos. 10541/2013,10542/2013 HARI CHAND SAINI & ANR ..... Appellants versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 485/2013 & CM Nos. 10544/2013,10545/2013 RAKESH KUMAR SAINI AND ANR ..... Appellants versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 488/2013 & CM Nos. 10557/2013,10558/2013 RAJINDER SAINI AND ANR Appellants LPA Nos.481/2013 and connected matters + + + versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent LPA 489/2013 & CM Nns. 1OS6n/?0l3.10561/2013.10562/2013 MOOL CHANDAND ANR Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent LPA 490/2013 & CM Nos. 10563/2013.10564/2013 JYOTISAINIAND ANI^ Appellants versus - .' DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent LPA 491/2013 & CM Nos. 10566/2013.10567/2013 HARI CHAND SAINI& ANR Appellants • versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 492/2013 & CM Nos. 10569/2013.10570/2013 KRISHANKUMARSIL\RMA & ANR Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 555/2013 & CM No. 11893/2013 RAM PRATAP& ANR. Appellants versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 558/2013 & CM Nos. 11897/2013.11898/2013 RAMU &ANR. Appellants LPA Nos.481/2013andconnectedmatters Page2of9 t'r' versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY . Respondent + LPA 559/2013 ifc CM Nos. 11919/2013.11920/2013 RAJESH KUMAR & ANR Appellants versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 560/2013 & CM Nos. 11921/2013/11922/2013 OM PRAKASH & ANR Appellant versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 561/2013 & CM No. 11923/2013 SANJAY AGGARWAL & ANR. Appellants versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent LPA 132/2016 & CM Nos. 7344/2016, 7345/2016 FAQIR CHAND (SINCE DECEASED) THR HIS LEGAL HEIR MUKESH KUMAR & ANR Appellants versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 200/2015 LILA RAM Appellant versus ESTATE OFFICER-II DDA & ANR .....Respondents + LPA 75/2017 & CM Nos. 3683/2017, 3684/2017 LPA Nos.481/2013 and connected matters + + RAMtSHCHA.NDSy\.INI&ANTR. Appellants versus : . \ DELrHDEVEL.OPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent LPA 668/2016 & CM Nos. 44900/2016. 44902/2016 NATPilJSINGH&ANR .....Appellants 'versus-' •' ' - DELin DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY .....Respondent LPA 4/2017 & CM Nos. 56/2017. 57/2017. SS/2017 •'DINESHKUMAR&ANTI .....Appellants . • • • VerSUS;. : . v. . DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUT>IOmTY ..... Respondent + LPA 669/2016 & CM Nqs. 44910/2016, 44912/2016 MAHESHKUMAR&ANR .V-.. ......Appellants • •• versus : , : ^ • DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent + W.P.(C) 504i/.2014 & CM Nos. 10061/2014, 10062/2014. 10063/2014 RAJESH KUMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners versus , DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY . . ...... Respondent + W.P.fcV5790/2016 CHHOTE LAL Petitioner versus THE DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY& ORS...Respondents LPA Nos.481/2013andconnectedmatters Page4ofi u \ + W.P.fO 5805/2016 TARA CHAND Petitioner versus ^ THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS , Respondents + W.P.(a 5806/2016 NATHU RAM Petitioner versus THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. Respondents + W.P.(a 5808/2016 KISHAN LAL Petitioner versus THE DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY& ORS. Respondents + LPA 2/2017 & CM Nos. 35/2017, 36/2017. 37/2017 RAJ PAL , , .....Appellant versus • DDA .....Respondent + • LPA 3/2017 & CM Nos. 53/2017, 54/2017, 55/2017 BUDH RAM Appellant versus DELHIDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY . _ . , ..... Respondent + LPA 5/2017 & CM Nos. 62/2017, 63/2017, 64/2017 GIAS RAM &ORiS Appellants ' . • ' . • versus ' ' • ' LPA Nos.481/2013and connectedmatters ' ' Page Sof 9 DELHI DEVELOPMENT^AUTHORITY Respondent + LPA 7/2Q17 & CM Nos. 69/2017, 70/2017. 71/203