Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 302 (DEL)

D. C. M. LIMITED v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

1994-05-01

A.D.SINGH, M.JAGANNADHA RAO

body1994
Anil Dev Singh, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 9, 1994 passed in I. A. 796/94 in suit No. 1085/91. The facts giying rise to this appeal are as under: ( 2 ) THE appellant claims that it was the owner of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 486,487 and 488 situate in village Pati Jahanuma Tehsil Delhi, District Delhi, and that in lieu of this land it was allotted land comprised in Khasra Nos-1613/153, 1654/153 and 1615/153 situate in Baghraoji Estate, Delhi. According to the appellant it is in possession of this land admeasuring 5071 sq. yds. since 1942 and has also made construction over it. ( 3 ) ON September 1, 1955 the Delhi Improvement Trust issued a notice under section 4 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950 claiming damages from the appellant for its unauthorised occupation of the said premises. Thereafter on March 19, 1963 proceedings were initiated by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (for short the Act ) against the appellant for recovery of damages on account of unauthorised occupation of the premises for the period from September 1953 to March 31, 1962. This ultimately led ,to filing of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by the appellant in which an order was passed staying the proceedings before the Estate Officer. ( 4 ) ON January 23, 1990 a notice under section 4 of the Act was issued to the appellant in respect of the property in question, to which the appellant filed objec- tions. During the course of the proceedings before the Estate Officer, an order dated April 11, 1991 was passed closing the evidence of the appellant. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition, being writ petition No. 1253/91, betore this Court. On January 22, 1993 the writ petition was disposed of and the Estate Officer was directed to allow the appellant to adduce oral evidence ( 5 ) THERE was another manifestation of the same dispute which also needs to be mentioned. In April 1991 the appellant filed a suit (Suit No. l085/91) in this Court seeking declaration with regard to its title and possession over the property in question with a further prayer, made separately by means of an application, for protecting its possession till the disposal of the suit. In April 1991 the appellant filed a suit (Suit No. l085/91) in this Court seeking declaration with regard to its title and possession over the property in question with a further prayer, made separately by means of an application, for protecting its possession till the disposal of the suit. ( 6 ) COMING back to the eviction proceedings initiated under the Act, it will be pertinent to point out that on February 19, 1993 the appellant filed an application before the Estate Officer under sections 10 and 151 Civil Procedure Code for stay of the proceedings on the ground that the question of title was being investigated in the suit. This application was dismissed by the Estate Officer on February 19, 1993 itself. While disposing of the application, the Estate Officer took note of the order of the High Court dated January 22, 1993 and the fact that the appellant had submitted a list of 56 witnesses in support of its claim. The Estate Officer by this order also directed issuance of summons to the witnesses of the appellant. ( 7 ) THE appellant having failed to obtain a favourable order from the Estate Officer, filed an application being I. A. 2691/93 under Order 39 Rule I Civil Procedure Code in Suit No. l085/91 for stay of the eviction proceedings. This application was filed by the appellant on March 3, 1993. On August 24, 1993 the learned Single Judge allowed the proceedings before the Estate Officer to go on but stayed the passing of the final order till further orders. ( 8 ) IN its pursuit to have the eviction proceedings stalled the appellant had also filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution being C. M. (M) 126/93 challenging the order dated February 19, 1993 passed by the Estate Officer. This application was dismissed on March 18, 1993. ( 9 ) THE appellant also filed a civil miscellaneous application (C.-M. 7664/94) in the disposed of writ petition (C. W. P. No. 1253/91) for clarification of the order dated January 22, 1993. On January 7, 1994 a Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the application clarified that the order dated January 22, 1993 did not preclude the appellant from having recourse to other legal remedies, if any, for seeking stay of the proceedings pending before the Estate Officer. On January 7, 1994 a Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the application clarified that the order dated January 22, 1993 did not preclude the appellant from having recourse to other legal remedies, if any, for seeking stay of the proceedings pending before the Estate Officer. ( 10 ) ARMED with the aforesaid order, the appellant filed a fresh application, being I. A. 796/94, in Suit No. l085/91, again praying for stay of the eviction proceedings. From a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 9, 1994 passed in the said application, it appears that the appellant did not canvass before him that the eviction proceedings should be stayed on the ground that. there was a serious dispute between the parties with regard to the title to the land which cannot be appropriately gone into by the Estate Officer in summary proceedings under the Act. The order reveals that the appellant took the following thrtee points before the learned Single Judge - i) The previous Estate Officer had carried out admission/denial of documents in the suit on behalf of the Department and as such, he acted as a Judge in his own cause; ii) The Estate Officer without passing any order on the application of the appellant seeking permission to file documents was forcing it to produce witneses; iii) The Estate Officer was not letting the appellant to inspect the file dealing with the matter of damages in regard to the premises in question. ( 11 ) IN the above order it is pointed out that the Estate Officer who had made the admission/denial of the documents on behalf of the Department has since been transferred and the. proceedings are pending before another Estate Officer. In so far as the request of the appellant to inspect the aforesaid file is concerned, the counsel for the respondents agreed before the learned Single Judge that the file will be produced before the Estate Officer for inspection of the appellant. ( 12 ) IN so far as the other contention of the appellant was concerned, the learned Single Judge directed the Estate Officer to pass an order relating to the filing of the documents before the appellants were called upon to lead evidence. After having dealt with the aforesaid pleas, the learned Single Judge directed the proceedings to go on before the Estate Officer. After having dealt with the aforesaid pleas, the learned Single Judge directed the proceedings to go on before the Estate Officer. It is this order which has been called in question by the appellant before us mainly on the ground that the proceedings should have been stayed by the learned Single Judge as there was serious controversy between the parties relating to the title of the land. As already pointed out, this plea was not pressed before the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may, it is worth noticing that the proceedings under section 4 of the Act were initiated against the appellant on January 23, 1990 and no evidence by way of statements of the appellant s witnesses have so far been recorded in the matter as the appellant has successfully prevented that to happen. Unless evidence is recorded, we fail to understand how it is possible to properly appreciate whether any serious dispute arises between the parties relating to title to the property. It also needs to be mentioned that the learned Single Judge on August 24, 1993 has stayed the passing of the final order by the Estate Officer. By this order, the rights of the appellant are completely safeguarded and no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the appellant if the proceedings before the Estate Officer go on and the evidence in the matter is adduced. ( 13 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.