Bhim Singh & Others v. Delhi Jal Board

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 27, 2018 SR..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 27th August, 2018 + W.P.(C) 3440/2012 BHIM SINGH & ORS .... Petitioners Through: Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Adv. Versus DELHI JAL BOARD .... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 20th March, 2012 in PPA No. 05/08/05 and PPA No. 06/08/05 of the Court of District Judge- North West acting as Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act)] of dismissal of the two appeals preferred by the petitioners with respect to the same immovable property. 2. This petition came up first before this Court on 30th May, 2012 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and status quo ordered to be maintained. Vide subsequent order dated 11th December, 2012, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution but on application of the petitioners, vide order dated 16th January, 2013, restored to its original position. Vide subsequent order dated 14th July, 2015, finding that the petitioners were delaying these proceedings, the interim order was vacated. Though this Court on 14th July, 2015 asked the respondent Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to report the steps taken for execution of the order, but the counsel for the petitioners states that no steps have been taken by the respondent DJB for execution of the order. 3. Today, none has appeared for the respondent DJB. It appears that officers of the respondent DJB are interested in perpetuating the possession of the petitioners and are not interested in recovering the possession of their premises with respect to which proceedings under PP Act were initiated. 4. Though the proceedings under PP Act are intended to be summary, but owing to conduct, as aforesaid, of the officers of the respondent DJB, have remained pending since the year 1977. 5. On 31st May, 1977, the predecessor of the respondent DJB i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) filed a petition before the Estate Officer, under Sections 4 and 7 of the PP Act, pleading (i) that land admeasuring 800.241 acres in villages of Jhasoda, Shanjarpur, Mukandpur, Azadpur, Bhadsua Jehangirpur, Bharola and Dhirpur, situated at Coronation Pillar behind Model Town, Delhi, was property of the MCD and was public premises; (ii) that the petitioners/ their predecessor were in unauthorized occupation of 720 sq. yds. situated in Khasra No. 4 of village Azadpur out of the aforesaid land; (iii) that the MCD had not given the aforesaid piece of land on lease or otherwise to the petitioners herein or their predecessor and the petitioners or their predecessor were mere trespassers; and, (iv) the petitioners were liable to pay damages for unauthorised use and occupation at the rate of 75 paise per sq. yd. per month and a sum of Rs.96,156/- was due towards damages. 6. Notice under Sections 4 and 7 of the PP Act was issued by the Estate Officer to the petitioners/ their predecessor. The petitioners/ their predecessor contested the proceedings before the Estate Officer. 7. On 7th May, 1981, the Estate Officer passed order of eviction and of recovery of damages against the petitioners. 8. The petitioners/ their predecessor preferred two appeals under Section 9 of the PP Act being PPAs No.4/83 and 6/83. 9. It was the contention of the petitioners in PPAs No.4/83 and 6/83, that the MCD had approached the Estate Officer with the plea that the land in possession of the petitioners was situated in Khasra No. 4 of village Azadpur; that it was for the MCD to establish the said fact; though the respondent MCD had produced a witness who stated that he had conducted a survey of the land situated at Coronation Pillar and the land in possession of the petitioners was part of 800.241 acres belonging to the MCD, however during cross-examination, the said witness deposed that every khasra number was different and he could not give measurement of Khasra No. 4;