Case title:
Bal Kishan Gupta vs DDA
Date of Order:
JANUARY 31st , 2024
Bench:
Honorable Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh
Parties:
Bal Kishan Gupta - Petitioner
DDA - Respondent
SUBJECT
- This petition seeks substantial relief, including a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent and its employees from demolishing the petitioner's house No. T-5139 A/1 (Municipal No. 12036/1) Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and dispossessing the petitioner.
- The property's title is pending adjudication, but the petitioner maintained settled possession during demolition. The court emphasized natural justice, citing Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation. The respondent-DDA claimed unauthorized occupancy without rights, but no objections or evidence were presented and the Supreme Court ruled the respondent must adhere to the principles laid down.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 4 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950.
- Section 4 and 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act.
OVERVIEW
- Mr. Jiwan Mal, the son of Mr. Lal Chand, owned and resided in property located at No. T-5139 A-1, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, measuring 460 square yards (referred to as "premises/property"). He constructed a single-storey building on it in 1948-49, during the period when the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act were applicable to buildings in Delhi. Mr. Jiwan Mal and his family resided there continuously, occasionally renting out parts of the premises.
- The property, assigned Municipal No. 12036/1, was assessed to property tax since 1956. In 1966, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) demolished portions of the property, leading to a civil suit for damages. Mr. Jiwan Mal claimed ownership and 17 years of peaceful possession. The Sub-Judge 1st Class ruled the demolition illegal and awarded damages. An appeal and civil revision were dismissed, and no further appeals were filed.
- The Delhi Improvement Trust claimed land title from Mr. Jiwan Mal, who claimed ownership until his death in 1991. His heirs, including two sons and six daughters, relinquished their rights in 345 sq. mts. of the total area to Mr. Harish Kumar. The petitioner then transferred 172.5 sq. mts. of the undivided portion of the property through a registered sale deed.
- On 24.04.2005, Naib Tehsildar and Naresh Patwari demanded title deeds from a property owner. The officials carried out partial demolition without notice, and the entire structure was to be removed by 08.06.2005. The petitioner sought written orders from the DDA's Head Office but was unsuccessful.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the demolitions carried out by the respondent-DDA were illegal for the want of adherence to principles of natural justice?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The judgment in Suit No. 254/1975 has been finalized, and any challenge by the respondent-DDA against the Civil Court's judgment would be barred by estoppel and time-barred. The petitioner acquired property ownership through a registered sale deed, and any attempt to set aside this deed is barred by limitation.
- The petitioner claims that the respondent-DDA's demolitions were arbitrary and violated natural justice principles. The respondent's contention that the property is part of Nazul Land and Southern Ridge Revenue Estate is challenged by the petitioner's counsel, who argues that no specific description exists to prove this.
- The respondent's claim that Mr. Jiwan Mal was an unauthorized occupant of the property is contradicted by the record. The respondent relied on documents from two proceedings against Mr. Mal, involving damages under the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950 and public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971.
- No record exists for eviction or demolition proceedings. Despite this, Mr. Mal remained in settled possession until his death, and any subsequent proceedings would be barred by limitation.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The petitioner is not the owner of the property, which belongs to Mr. Jiwan Mal, who unauthorizedly entered and built without proper permission. The respondent has been notified under Section 4 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950 for damages assessment.
- Mr. Jiwan Mal, a poor refugee in India, unauthorizedly occupied land and built unauthorized structures. He sought rent at a reasonable rate. The Chairman of Delhi Improvement Trust rejected his offer, imposing reduced damages. He appealed, requesting easy installments or nominal ground rent. Part damages were deposited, but the Chairman never approved his occupation.
- Mr. Jiwan Mal, an unauthorized occupant of Nazul Land, was evaluated for damages due to constructing a new building that needed demolition. Subsequently, the respondent initiated a demolition program to clear the squatters. The civil court contended that Mal concealed his unauthorized occupation and the order for damages, with the court's observation being influenced by testimony from an unrelated individual.
- In essence, Mr. Jiwan Mal is accused of deceiving the court by failing to disclose an order issued against him under Section 4 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, thus obtaining a decree in his favor that is considered legally void and can be contested in writ proceedings. The argument draws upon the legal principle established in A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221, which asserts that any judgment or order obtained through fraud is invalid in the eyes of the law.
- Additionally, it is noted that the respondent has presented documents that the petitioner did not contest, implying that Mal was aware of these documents but chose to withhold them from the court.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The writ petition asks the court to determine if the respondent-DDA's demolitions were illegal due to natural justice principles, as the petitioner's only request. The court is not obligated to adjudicate on property title or time barred actions, but must determine if the petitioner was in settled possession of the property.
- Mr. Jiwan Mal, the property's predecessor-in-interest, was allowed to remain on the property on unauthorized user charges. However, he was ordered to pay damages and demolition. The learned SJIC awarded damages against the DDA's action, stating that Mr. Mal is the owner of the premises. The DDA filed an appeal and civil revision, but both were dismissed.
- Mr. Jiwan Mal owned a property, despite not having legal title. The current petitioner acquired it from Mr. Harish Kumar, whose legal heirs relinquished their share. The respondent's counsel's argument, based on A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., is unfounded, as the respondent should have raised fraud and concealment issues during the appeal.
- The petitioner is requesting directives to prevent the respondent from demolition activities, arguing that the respondent's failure to disclose past proceedings against the property's previous owner does not constitute concealment or misleading. The respondent-DDA has not definitively proven the land is government-owned, as the documents provided do not provide specific descriptions of the property's composition.
- The property's title is pending adjudication in future proceedings. The petitioner held settled possession during demolition. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice, stating individuals must be given a fair hearing before their property is demolished, regardless of their defense, as established in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation.
- The petitioner claims no show cause notice or prior intimation was provided before demolitions on a property, and the respondent-DDA claims the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant without rights. No objections or rebuttals have been made, and no documentary evidence has been provided.
CONCLUSION
- The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, representing the State, must adhere to natural justice principles and avoid demolitions based on discretion. The petitioner, who owned a property with a registered sale deed, was subjected to demolition without notice or opportunity to respond, violating natural justice principles.
- The writ petition was granted, and a Writ of Prohibition was issued, preventing the respondent-DDA from demolishing the petitioner's house and disposing of her without following due process.
