Union Of India (Uoi) Through ... vs G. Sareen S/O Late Shri Kulnath ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 1700 Del

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The justice delivery system in this country is criticized because of cases like the present one where due to the apathy of the State, followed by its negative enthusiasm, a litigant has to wait for decades in search of justice. The Respondent's father was allotted a plot of land in 1955 and although more than half a century has passed, the Respondent (who is himself now 75 years old) has not been able to get possession of that plot. Initially, the State (Appellants) showed complete disdain in taking any action to hand over possession of the plot and when possession became a reality for the Respondent, the Appellants raised frivolous objections to deny possession to him.

2. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th June, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) No. 2578 of 2003.

3. The father of the Respondent was allotted a plot bearing No. A-32, Kirti Nagar on 24th April, 1955 by the Rehabilitation Housing Corporation Ltd., the predecessor in interest of the Appellants. It appears that this plot was subsequently allotted to a school with a result that in lieu thereof, he was allotted a different plot bearing No. E/51-52, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.

4. In respect of this plot, the predecessor in interest of the Appellants, that is, the Rehabilitation Housing Corporation Ltd. and the father of the Respondent entered into an agreement on 22nd October, 1955 called an 'agreement to sell for non-displaced persons'.

5. On 12th March, 1956, the father of the Respondent moved an application for transfer of the plot in the name of the Respondent. The application form contained a stipulation at the bottom to the following effect:- NB With this form must accompany an application on form from the transferee and an attested copy of his refugee registration certificate in case transferor is a DISPLACED (balance portion is missing).

6. The learned Single Judge noted that as above, a refugee registration certificate was required if the transferor is a displaced person. But since the allotment of a plot to the father of the Respondent as per the agreement to sell indicated that he was being treated as a non-displaced person, no refugee registration certificate was asked for or given by the Respondent's father along with the application dated 12th March, 1956.

7. Consequently, on 27th July, 1956, the Appellants transferred the allotment of the plot bearing No. E/51-52, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi from the Respondent's father to the Respondent. It is stated by the Respondent that most of the payment for allotment of the plot was paid by his father during 1955-56 and the full payment was made by 30th April, 1968.

8. Be that as it may, on 13th February, 1957, when the Respondent went to take possession of the plot, he found that it was full of squatters and encroachers. That is when the first phase of the travails of the Respondent began. He tried to persuade the Appellants to initiate proceedings for removal of squatters and encroachers but it was only in 1966 that the Appellants filed a suit for possession.

9. Not surprisingly, the Appellants took no interest in prosecuting the suit despite prodding by the Respondent with the result that the suit was eventually dismissed on account of non-prosecution and non-impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased squatters and encroachers. An appeal was filed by the Appellants in this Court but that was also dismissed for non-prosecution.

10. The Appellants showed no further interest in handing over vacant possession of the plot to the Respondent and, therefore, he was compelled to file a writ petition in this Court being WP (C) No. 47 of 1993 in which he had prayed for a direction to the Appellants to proceed forthwith under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 and to remove the squatters/land grabbers in possession of the plot allotted to the Respondent.

11. The writ petition filed by the Respondent was disposed of in his favor by a Division Bench of this Court on 27th April, 1995. The following order was passed by the Division Bench:- C.W. 47/1993

In the affidavit of Shri C P Katyal, Settlement Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, it has been stated that proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in order to evict unauthorised occupants from plot No. E-51/52, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi allotted to petitioner, have been initiated. We direct that the said proceedings be completed within a period of one year from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the order be given to counsel for the parties.

April 27, 1995 Sd/- Y.K. Sabharwal Judge

Sd/- Arun Kumar

Judge

12. Despite the positive direction by this Court to complete the proceedings within one year, the Estate Officer passed an eviction order only on 4th April, 1997 in favor of the Respondent and against the squatters and encroachers. The order of the Estate Officer was challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court which, by an order dated 4th January, 2000, dismissed the special leave petition filed by the squatters and encroachers being SLP (C) No. 20877 of 2000.

13. After the proceedings eventually concluded against the squatters and encroachers by the decision of the Supreme Court, they were removed by the Appellants on or about 6th July, 2001.

14. Thereafter, the second saga of the Respondent vis-a-vis the Appellants began. Before giving him possession of the plot, the Respondent was asked to furnish certain documents, which he did and there is no dispute about that. Thereafter, when all the documentation etc. was over, the Appellants suddenly demanded a refugee registration certificate from the Respondent, a document which was not asked for at any stage until then. Since the Respondent could not produce the refugee registration certificate, and the Appellants refused to give him possession of the plot without the certificate, the Respondent had no option but to file a writ petition in this Court being WP (C) No. 2578 of 2003 which was decided in his favor and out of which the impugned order has arisen. In the writ petition, the Respondent prayed for a direction to the Appellants to transfer in his favor the plot bearing No. E/51-52, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi by means of a sale/conveyance deed and also to transfer its ownership to the Respondent forthwith and without any delay.

15. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the issues in considerable detail and we are not repeating the same because it is not necessary to do so.

16. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the Appellants before us was that relief could not have been granted to the Respondent because he did not produce the refugee registration certificate.

17. We find that this very argument was raised by the Appellants before the learned Single Judge and though she was of the view that such a document was not required from the Respondent, even then by way of abundant precaution, the following observation was made:- During the course of hearing, I had put a query to Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, as to whether a refugee registration certificate could be issued at this stage when the demand for it was being made. On instructions from the officer present in court, who had brought even the original records, he has informed the court that no refugee registration certificates are being issued for the last 35 years. In this view of the matter, the petitioner could not possibly be called upon to furnish a certificate which the respondents themselves had not required the petitioner to furnish for almost forty years and which was not being issued for over three decades.

18. It is quite clear from the above that at no point of time was the Respondent ever asked to produce a refugee registration certificate and why he should be asked to do so at the fag end of his travails and almost at the fag end of his life (the Respondent is said to be about 75 years of age) is not known. One can only guess why such a document was suddenly asked for by the officers of the Appellants.

19. It may be recalled that the agreement to sell entered into between the predecessor in interest of the Appellants and the father of the Respondent clearly mentioned that it related to a non-displaced person and when the Respondent's father sought to transfer the allotment in favor of the Respondent, the requirement of a refugee registration certificate was necessary only if the transferor was a displaced person, which was not the case in so far as the Respondent's father was concerned. Therefore, even on merits, we do not find any justification in the Appellants demanding a refugee registration certificate from the Respondent.

20. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

21. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the Respondent has been put to so much inconvenience for more than half a century, we are constrained to award costs of Rs. 25,000/- which the Appellants will pay to the Respondent within two months from today.