Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1114 (DEL)

MADAN LAL JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA

2000-12-20

A.K.SIKRI, ARUN KUMAR

body2000
Arun Kumar ( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to be a displaced person who migrated to India on partition of the country. After coming to Delhi he unauthorisedly occupied Government land on Mirdard Road, Minto Road, New Delhi. Unauthorised occupation which started with a small piece of land was admittedly gradually extended to cover an area of 831 sq. yds. The petitioner submits that he was doing business in fire wood and coal on the said piece of land. According to the case of the petitioner as per the Gadgil Assurance he is entitled to allotment of 200 sq. yds. of land at an alternate site for purposes of his business. The petitioner was sought to be evicted from the land in his possession because according to the respondents he is not covered within the Gadgil Assurance and, therefore, is not entitled to any alternative piece of land. An order was passed in this behalf by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The petitioner has challenged the same by way of the main writ petition. The petitioner sought interim relief in the writ petition with respect to possession of the land occupied by him and orders dated 1/10/1992 and 12/05/1994 were passed. The petitioner alleges violation of these orders which read as under: "1. 10. 1992 Present : Mr. S. C. Nigam for the petitioner. C. W. 3530/92 : Notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 14/12/1992. It is stated that in a similar matter (CW 3430/92) another Bench of this Court has also issued similar notice. C. M. 6554/92 : Notice for 14/12/1992. Meanwhile, there will be stay of proceedings before the Estate Officer. Dasti as well. CM. 6554-A/92 : Allowed subject to all just exceptions. " "12. 5. 94 Present: Mr. S. C. Nigam for the petitioner. Ms. M. M. Chopra, for the respondent. Counter has been filed, rejoinder is yet to be filed. Vide order dated 1. 10. 1992, proceedings before the Estate Officer have been stayed. The petitioner is enjoying possession of the premises in question. It is clarified that by Order dated 1. 10,1992 has stayed his dispossession from the premises but recovery, if any, to which the petitioner may be liable on account of his being in occupation of the premises has not been stayed. 1992, proceedings before the Estate Officer have been stayed. The petitioner is enjoying possession of the premises in question. It is clarified that by Order dated 1. 10,1992 has stayed his dispossession from the premises but recovery, if any, to which the petitioner may be liable on account of his being in occupation of the premises has not been stayed. The respondents are at liberty to make the recoveries. DASTI to respondent s Counsel. Renotify on 26. 8. 1994". ( 2 ) HOWEVER, in an application filed by the respondent for modification of the aforesaid orders, on the ground that petitioner was occupying public paths etc. , these orders were modified by another order dated 25/05/2000. Since this order has bearing on the present contempt petition, we would like to reproduce the same: "25. 5. 2000 Present : Mr. S. C. Nigam for the petitioner. Ms. Gita Mittal with Ms. Sangeeta Chandra for the applicant. C. M. 13703/99 in C. W. 3530/1992. Heard in part. For the present, we direct the Competent Authority of MCD / Landdo to inspect the premises in question. After inspection, if it is found that the petitioner is occupying public path/road/foot-path the obstruction shall be removed. Order dated 1/10/1992 and 12/05/1994 shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. List the matter on 4/08/2000. A copy of the order be given Dasti to the learned Counsel for the applicant. " ( 3 ) IN pursuance of the said order, officers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Land and Development Office inspected the site and thereafter the obstructions at site were removed with police assistance. It is not disputed that the petitioner still continues to occupy space of about 200 sq. yds. at the site in question. The petitioner is aggrieved of the action on the part of the respondents in clearing the obstructions on public path/road and right of way. The petitioner, however, disputes this. According to him there was no public path or right of way and the action was wholly illegal and violative of the order dated 25/05/2000 and the respondents are liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not a party to the writ petition. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not a party to the writ petition. However since it was associated with the impugned action, it has been made a party to this contempt petition. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the MCD it has been stated that at site encroachment by the petitioner was shown by the Engineering Officer of the Land and Development Office. A zonal plan of the area was also handed over to the officers of the MCD. Measurements from the central line of existing Mirdard Road was also taken to assess as to how much portion of encroached land comes in the right of way. After the joint inspection the obstructions/encroachments which were found in the right of way were removed in an action taken from 7/08/2000 to 9th August, 2000. In ththe present petition we are only concerned as to whether there is a wilful/ intentional/deliberate violation of the orders of this Court on the part of the alleged contemners. In the reply affidavit, it has been stated : "8. I say that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 25. 5. 2000 passed in the aforesaid writ petition the deponent was advised that the said order dated 25. 5. 2000 contemplated the joint inspection with the official of Landdo /mcd and thereupon if any obstruction is found on the road / footpath/right of way and Others, 1999 Crl. LJ. 3124=iv (1999) SLT 402=ii (1999) CCR 100 (SC ). ( 5 ) I have also gone through the record of the case, I am satisfied that on the basis of the material on record, there is every justification in maintaining the order framing charge and charges framed. In this view of the matter Criminal Revision No. 380 of 1999 and Criminal Revision No. 400 of 1999 are dismissed.