Harjit Singh vs Estate Officer
2003 Latest Caselaw 489 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The petitioner, in this writ petition has prayed for :(a) quashing of the order dated 23.1.92 passed by the learned additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi on his appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (herein referred to as `the Act'); (b) for regularisation of shop No. 83, Babu Market, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi in his name.

2. The facts are as under:

2.1 In 1964 the shop was allotted to Sh. Pritam Singh by the Directorate of Estates, Government of India, New Delhi. Sh. Pritam Singh conducted his tailoring business from this shop from 1964 onwards. On 1.1.96, Sh. Pritam Singh entered into a partnership with his nephew Harjit Singh (petitioner) and the share of the parties in the partnership was 60% and 40% respectively. The name of the firm was M/s Modern Tailors and the premises of the business was shown as 83, Babu Market, Sarojini Nagar, Delhi i.e., the property in question. On 16th February, 1987, Sh. Pritam Singh executed a will (unregistered) bequeathing the shop in question to his said nephew Harjit Singh (petitioner). On 23.7.87, Sh. Pritam Singh expired. He left no heir as his wife had pre-deceased him and they had no issue. Accordingly, on the basis of the will, the petitioner Harjit Singh applied for transfer of the license deed in his name by his letter dated 14th October, 1987. By a letter dated 22nd September, 1988, Mr. B.D. Ahuja, Asstt. Director of Estates (M), New Delhi turned down the petitioner's request on the ground that only the name of a legal heir is allowed to be substituted and not that of a nephew.

2.2 We are not going into the merits of his decision. On 2.2.88 a notice under Section 4 of the said Act was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the notice and appeared for hearing and the Estate Officer by his order dated 30th November, 1989 ordered eviction of petitioner from the said shop on the ground that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant.

2.3 Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the said Act which, as aforesaid, was dismissed by the learned ADJ by an order passed on 23.1.92 which is impugned in this writ petition. It will be pertinent to note that in the impugned decision dated 23.1.92 it is indicated that " this, however, shall not have any bearing that the case of the appellant is being considered by the respondent for allotment or for regularisation of the case as may be."

2.4 Insofar as the relief of quashing of the impugned order is concerned, it is clear that this court under Article 226 does not sit as a court of appeal and would not normally interfere with an order passed under Section 9 of the said Act. There must be some glaring impropriety or a grave error in the decision making process which would entitle this court to interfere with the impugned judgment and/or order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. There being no such impropriety or error in the present case, I am not inclined to interfere with that decision.

2.5 However, the petitioner has made another prayer and that relates to regulalrisation. This question, in terms of the impugned order itself has been left open. In this regard, the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out various policies of the government dated 20th October, 1989, 25th July, 1996 and 31st August, 2000 which have been set out at pages 89, 90 and 93 (respectively) of the paper book. The first and third policies pertain to transfer of ownership rights whereas the second policy pertains to regularisation. While the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be covered under these policies it is the express statement of the learned counsel for the respondent that, in fact, the petitioner would not be covered under these policies.

2.6 Be that as it may, in a letter dated 18.2.92 bearing D-E(Mkt)/24/83/64 issued by Assistant Director of Estates (Markets) to the petitioner, it was indicated that the petitioner's application for regularisation /conferment of ownership rights was under consideration and certain documents/details were required to be furnished and or submitted by the petitioner.

2.7 By a letter dated 23.3.92, the petitioner submitted the requisite documents and original papers and requested that his case be decided sympathetically. However, no decision has been taken as yet. The reason for this appears to be the pendency of the present writ petition. In fact, in the reply of the respondent filed in CM.No. 13098/2002 in paragraph 2 itself it is clearly mentioned that:

"That Cabinet in its meeting held on 20.10.89 decided to grant ownership rights to occupants of the 10 markets including Babu Market (Annexure-I). But the present case could not be considered for ownership rights as it was pending in the court of law."

3. Hence, the only direction that needs to be given in this writ petition is that the petititioner's application be considered in terms of the policies of the Central Government and the fact that the petitioner had filed this petition should not come in the way of deciding the question of regularisation of the said shop in favor of the petitioner. Till the respondents take a decision on the said application of the petitioner for regularisation/conferment of ownership rights in respect of the shop in question, status quo as regards possession be maintained

4. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.