Delhi High Court
All India Democratic Women'S ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 September, 2002
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the All
India Democratic Women's Association, petitioner No. 1
and Ms. Urmila Punera, petitioner No. 2, who happens to
be a resident of the premises/hostel in question,
namely, New Maharashtra Sadan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi. Petitioners in the writ petition have
sought the following relief:-
(i) to issue an appropriate write or order
restraining all the respondents including
respondent Government of Maharashtra from
demolishing any of the blocks of buildings A-E
in the premises now known as New Maharashtra
Sadan and to maintain the status quo;
(ii) to call for the respondent Ministry's
file ref. to in Annex-P-3-communication viz; M/O
Urban Affairs and Employment (lands Division)
- vide Ministry's letter No. J-13022/1/78/L-II
(vol. II) dated 24.3.1999.
(iii) to allow the petitioners to inspect the
file in the light of freedom of information
Bill 2000;
(iv) declaring that the building & property of
6 acres covered by Annex-P3 communication
dated 16.6.1999 belong to Govt. of India and
not to Govt. of Maharashtra and that the
alleged transfer of property is of no legal
consequence or force;
(v) that meanwhile the property be duly
maintained in good repair by respondent Govt.
of Maharashtra with hygiene and sanitary care
with necessary night lighting;
(vi) if the transfer is declared illegal, to
direct that the property be handed over to
respondent National Commission for women to
build its own office along with a women's
complex with women's media centre and a
working women's hostel and other facilities
exclusively for women'
(vii) to pass such other or further order
deemed fit and proper.
2. This writ petition has had a chequered
history. For a considerable period of time, by making
of numerous miscellaneous applications, the progress
and disposal of the main writ petition was digressed.
As the writ petition was listed today for disposal, I
have heard counsel for the parties.
3. As regards relief Nos. (ii) and (iii),
these have already been granted and records were made
available and counsel for the petitioner also had the
inspection of the records of respondents. Regarding
the first prayer that blocks of buildings A-E be not
demolished, learned counsel for respondent/State of
Maharashtra has submitted that State of Maharashtra
does not plan to demolish the building till the
proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short PP Act,
1971) are concluded. It is clarified by her that
portions of the building, where the allottees or
occupants have been evicted may be taken up for
demolition and reconstruction in accordance with law.
The relief No. (iv), as sought by the petitioner is
that the building and property be declared to be
belonging to the Government of India and not to the
State Government of Maharashtra. I am afraid such a
declaration cannot be given at the behest of
petitioner No. 1, who itself has no locus and
petitioner No. 2, who happens to be an
allottee/unauthorised occupant, facing proceedings
under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971. In writ jurisdiction, this
Court will not embark on determination of question of
title. Learned counsel for the petitioner in her
attempt to submit that the State of Maharashtra was
not the legal owner and was not lawfully entitled to
institute proceedings against petitioner No. 2 and
other occupants, submitted that Union of India itself
was not clear on whether the property belongs to the
State of Maharashtra or not. According to her,
opinion has been expressed by certain functionaries of
L&DO that the property does not belong to the State of
Maharashtra. She submits that the Central Government
in its counter affidavit had not denied the
allegations made in petition and, therefore, it be
deemed to have accepted the allegations of the
petitioners. She also submitted that the response of
the Central Government and the State of Maharashtra
was not adequate inasmuch the affidavit had been filed
by an Engineer, who was not competent or conversant
with the facts. She submits that the understanding
was that the present building would be maintained as
women's hostel.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent in
rebuttal has urged that the Union of India has
transferred the property on "As is Where is Basis".
In this connection, he refers to the communication
dated 29.12.1998, by which a decision was taken to
restore possession to the State of Maharashtra.
Receipt for formal handing over of possession was
issued on 24.3.1999. It would be relevant to
reproduce the extract from the letter dated
29.12.1998:-
"Keeping in view that the property by law is
vested in Govt. of Maharashtra, I am directed
to convey the approval of the President of
India for the restoration of possession of
about 6 acres of land know as Sirmur plot as
show in L & DO plan No. 163 at K.G. Marg, to
Govt. of Maharashtra.
The possession of the land will be handed over
to Govt. of Maharashtra only after relocation
of the occupants at the cost of State
Govt. C.P.W.D./Directorate/Estate will take all
steps to evict all those, if necessary by
re-locating them elsewhere, who are under
their control, or those whom Govt. has let
into use or possession."
On a perusal of the foregoing, it would be
seen that the Union of India has taken care to ensure
that provision is made for relocation of the occupants
at the cost of State/CPWD with stipulation that steps
will be taken for relocation of the occupants.
Ms. Lily Thomas, counsel for the petitioner submitted
that building in question ought to be retained as
women's hostel and grave hardship would be caused to
the women, if they are evicted. The plea is without
substance. Firstly, proceedings for eviction have
been initiated under the P.P. Act, 1971 are separately
pending. It would be for such of the occupants, who
want to defend their occupation to take such pleas, as
are available at law in contesting the proceedings.
Secondly, there is considerable merit in the
submission of Mr. Mahinder Singh that some of the
occupants have been occupying premises for
considerable period of time for more than one or two
decades are public interest purpose is best served by
such hostels functioning as transit accommodation.
However, it is not necessary for me to express any
opinion on this aspect. The writ petition is not
maintainable on the short ground of it seeking
essentially a declaration in respect of title in
property, which cannot be adjudicated upon in writ
proceedings. Moreover, the petitioners themselves do
not claim any proprietary rights and have no locus.
The writ petition has no merit and is
dismissed as not maintainable.
