Dharam Pal vs Union Of India And Ors.
1993 Latest Caselaw 436 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) The petitioner, by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks a writ of certiorari, etc. for quashing the order dated 10 December 1991 of the third respondent, namely, the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Director (Panchayat), Development Department (Panchayat Unit)ofthe Delhi Administration. By this order the third respondent required the Block Development Officer, the fourth respondent, to initiate proceedings of ejectment against the petitioner on account of his illegal possession of Gaon Sabha land of village Aya Nagar which comprised in Khasras No. 600 and 601. The fourth respondent was required to resume the land of Gaon Sabha. It is stated that the petitioner had installed a petrol pump on this land which was in his illegal possession. A copy of this order was endorsed to the petitioner; the Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, the fifth respondent; and to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), the sixth respondent. In the endorsement of this order the Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, was requested that the petrol pump had been installed illegally by the petitioner on Gaon Sabha land which may be vacated at the earliest and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) was requested that no objection certificate in favor of the petitioner who was running the petrol pump in the name of Ram Grit Auto be withdrawn as he had illegally installed the petrol pump on Gaon Sabha land of village Aya Nagar.

(2) There are six respondents. The first two respondents are the Union of India and the Delhi Administration. The other four respondents have been mentioned above.

(3) Petitioner says he was granted lease of land bearing Khasras No. 600 and 601 in village Aya Nagar which measured 5 bighas at the rate of I 10.00 per bigha per year by the Gaon Sabha of village Aya Nagar under a resolution of the Gaon Sabha on 18 December 1986. This he says was for the purpose of installing a petrol pump for a period of nine years. Petitioner says it was thereafter that he obtained the no objection certificate from theD.C.P. (Licensing) and explosive license from the Controller of Explosives to install the petrol pump there. His claim, therefore, is that possession of his land is authorised. In support of his case the petitioner has filed resolutions passed in the meeting of the Gaon Sabha under the Chairmanship of Raghubir Singh, Pradhan, on 18 December 1986. Resolution No.3 is relevant and it states that Pradhan told in the meeting that the petitioner who was resident of village Aya Nagar had made a shop of 10'xl2' at Khasra No.600-601. After discussion with the petitioner it was found that he wished to pay rent and he was ready to pay Rs.l20.00 per year. The resolution says that the members passed the resolution unanimously and asked the same to be sent to the competent authority for its approval. From this resolution it would appear that it was the petitioner who dictated the terms after having illegally constructed a shop of size of 10' x 12' on the Gaon Sabha land, and then he said he would pay Rs. 120.00 per year as the rent. Petitioner says that this resolution was sent to the competent authority for approvals No approval is forthcoming and on this basis the argument is that it must be presumed that approval had been granted. For one, there is nothing on record that any such resolution was in fact submitted-to the competent authority, and two, there cannot be any deemed permission in a case like this. The law, rules or regulations do not provide for raising any such presumption. 'This was respecting land of the size of 10' x 15' in Khasra No. 600-601. The petitioner says that then another resolution was passed by the Gaon Sabha whereby he was given lease of land of Gaon Sabha in whole of these two Khasras and this was specifically provided for the purpose of installation of petrol pump by unanimous resolution of the Gaon Panchayat. There is nothing on the record any such meeting of the Gram Panchayat in which such are solution was passed. But in support of his case the petitioner has brought on record a certificate issued by the Pradhan Raghubir certifying that the land of Khasras 600 and 601 had been given to the petitioner on lease by Gram Panchayat, the rental being at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per year, and that these Khasras had been given to the petitioner for installation of petrol pump by unanimous decision of the Panchayat. The certificate does not give the date or even the date of the resolution. The person who gave this certificate is dead. There is no approval of the competent authority assuming that there was any such resolution. Again it would appear that even any such resolution was passed it would have certainly been at the dictation of the petitioner. For a land of the size of 10' x 15' he agreed to pay annual rent at the rate of Rs. 1101- and now for the land of the size of 5 bighas comprised in Khasras 600-601 he agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per year !

(4) When the matter came up for admission we issued notice to show cause to the respondents as to why rule nisi be not issued and at the same time directed that there will be stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 10 December 1991 of the third respondent. The stay is continuing. The affidavit in answer to show cause has been filed by the third respondent. He has questioned the very claim of the petitioner. He has said in effect that the petitioner was a rank trespasser and had unauthorisedly occupied the Gaon Sabha land. Then he says under the garb of the interim order the petitioner made further constructions. An application was filed by the third respondent seeking stay on the petitioner from making any further constructions on the land. We directed that status quo shall be maintained, but the respondent has complained that even after that the petitioner has made unauthorised constructions in gross violation of the order of this court and to prove this point certain photographs of the site has been brought on record.

(5) The first thing is we have to apprise ourselves of the right of the petitioner to this land in question. We find he has no such right and he has based his claim on certain documents which have no legal basis and cannot be relied upon. During the course of pendency of these proceedings the petitioner also filed an affidavit of one Chuni Lal who claims he was a Deputy Pradhan in the year 1986. He says unanimous resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat allowing a shop of 10'x 15' on the land bearing Khasra No. 600-601 in village Aya Nagar to the petitioner and that the resolution was sent to the competent authority for approval. He says no disapproval was conveyed to the Panchayat" and rent receipt had always been given after the consent of the competent authority. He further says that later on area was extended for setting up a petrol pump in the area of four bighas and the amount of rent was increased from Rs.l20.00 to Rs. 150.00 per year. Chuni Lal is silent about the date of any such second resolution. In fact, very reading of this affidavit makes it unbelievable. Then the third respondent has also brought on record certified copies of revenue records for the years 1953-54 and 1991-92 showing that the land stands in the name of the Gaon Sabha. Reference has also been made to copy of the Khatauni where again the land has been shown as belonging to Gaon Sabha. We had appointed Local Commissioner in the matter. His report is already on record and it would appear to us that even after our order of status quo the petitioner has made certain unauthorised constructions. His whole case, as would appear from the record, is based on false premise. He has no right over the land in question. He has rather misled the court and got stay order. This type of conduct by any petitioner cannot be permitted. A false case has been put up by the petitioner. He is not entitled to any relief. Rather he should be removed from the whole of Khasra No. 600-601 of village Aya Nagar after removing all the constructions made thereupon by him and the land restored to the Gaon Sabha, Aya Nagar With these observations, this petition is dismissed. Petitioner will pay cost which we assess at Rs.10,000.00