Delhi High Court
Kay Tee Cables, Through Its Sole ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 17 January, 2006
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: C.J., M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 21st September, 2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing WP (C) No. 5679/2003.
2. The Appellant had filed a writ petition in respect of property bearing No.152-154 situated in village Chhatterpur, New Delhi. The Appellant prayed for determination of its rights in respect of the said property and for its transfer under Rule 26 or Rule 87 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (the Rules) and the circular of the Government of India dated 19th May, 1978. The Appellant also prayed for quashing of two orders dated 17th April, 2003 and 25th July, 2003 both passed by the Secretary (Land and Building).
3. The dispute regarding the rights in the said property was earlier the subject matter of considerable litigation between Teja Singh and Anup Singh (Respondents No. 4 and 5) and the State. The history of this litigation has been given in the order dated 17th April, 2003 passed by the Secretary (Land and Building), but it is not necessary to go into the details. Suffice it to say that the main issue agitated by these Respondents was with regard to the revaluation of the said property on its transfer to them as non-claimants under Rule 26 of the Rules. The Secretary (Land and Building) held in his order dated 17th April, 2003 that the revaluation had earlier achieved finality and that that issue could not be reopened by these Respondents. The petition filed by these Respondents under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (the Act) was dismissed by the said order dated 17th April, 2003.
4. While dismissing the petition, the Secretary (Land and Building) upheld an earlier order dated 28th October, 1988 passed by the Authorized Settlement Commissioner which directed Respondents No. 4 and 5 to have a refund of the amount deposited by them in respect of the said property. The Respondents No. 4 and 5 filed a review petition against the said order dated 17th April, 2003, but that was dismissed on 25th July, 2003.
5. It appears that the Appellant had filed an application for impleadment in the proceedings before the Secretary (Land and Building). While dealing with this, it was held in the said order that the Appellant is nothing but a trespasser in the property acquired and owned by the Government and as such it has no locus standi in respect of the dispute. The Appellant is aggrieved by these conclusions.
6. Pursuant to the order dated 17th April, 2003, the State issued a notice dated 9th July, 2003 to the Appellant in which it was alleged that it has unauthorizedly encroached upon and occupied the said property and that the Appellant is merely a trespasser in the said property. Accordingly, the Appellant was asked to hand over vacant possession of the said property, failing which necessary steps would be taken to evict it with force.
7. As mentioned above, the Appellant challenged the order dated 17th April, 2003 as well as order dated 25th July, 2003 by filing a writ petition.
8. Before the learned Single Judge Judge as well as before us, reliance was placed by learned counsel for the Appellant on a circular dated 12th May, 1978 passed by the Government of India in respect of disposal of acquired urban evacuee property in Delhi. It is mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said circular that it was decided to dispose of 1104 properties that are available for disposal, by transfer to the sitting occupants . The Appellant claimed to be a sitting occupant since 1978 and, therefore, claimed benefit of this circular.
9. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the State that as per the Appellant's own case, it came into possession of the property only in December, 1978. This has been mentioned in a petition sent by the Appellant on 23rd June, 1986 to the Managing Officer (Rent), Jaisalmer House, New Delhi (page 76 of the paper book) as well as in an undated petition to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi (page 78 of the paper book). This being the position, it is quite obvious that the Appellant was not a sitting occupant on 12th May, 1978 when the circular was issued by the Government of India and as such it is not entitled to get any benefit of that circular.
10. It is not clear from the record how the Appellant came into possession of the said property nor were we enlightened by learned counsel for the Appellant. It was, however, submitted by him that at least the rights of the Appellant ought to be adjudicated by the authorities. While this may be so, we find that it is the Appellant's inactivity that has resulted in this situation. The Appellant has not moved any application before any of the competent authorities claiming any right in the said property. It appears that the Appellant was trying to ride piggyback in the proceedings initiated by Respondents No. 4 and 5 by moving an application for impleadment. What interest the Appellant had in the proceedings initiated by Respondents No. 4 and 5 is not clear except to claim some benefit by default in case Respondents No. 4 and 5 do not succeed in their proceedings. This is what seems to be the game plan of the Appellant, namely, that because Respondents No. 4 and 5 have no right in the said property, then by default the Appellant has a right in the said property because it is in occupation thereof since 1978. This is totally incorrect.
11. The Appellant has to establish its own independent right in the said property if it has to succeed. This, the Appellant has failed to do. The Secretary (Land and Building) clearly held in its order dated 17th April, 2003 that the said property is acquired and owned by the Government and that the Appellant is nothing but a trespasser in the said property. The Appellant has not shown us anything to controvert these findings. As regards the claim of Respondents No. 4 and 5, the Secretary (Land and Building) upheld the view taken in the order dated 28th October, 1988 by the Authorized Settlement Commissioner directing the refund of the amount deposited by these Respondents. Quite clearly, therefore, the said property belongs to the State and that is why proceedings were rightly taken against the Appellant for its eviction there from.
12. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, the State has categorically mentioned that the Appellant did not apply for allotment of the said property in its favor under Rule 26 of the Rules and that the rights of the Appellant cannot be adjudicated in proceedings initiated by Respondents No. 4 and 5. We do not find any error in this view taken by the State on affidavit. Moreover, we find that there is considerable doubt whether the Appellant is at all a displaced person entitled to invoke Rule 26.
13. No other specific ground was urged by learned counsel for the Appellant to challenge the orders dated 17th April, 2003 and 25th July, 2003 passed by the Secretary (Land and Building). In any case, it is not possible for learned counsel to urge any factual inaccuracy in those orders. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the facts found by the competent authorities, as long as they are based on some cogent material. The facts being well established and undisputed, we cannot interfere with the impugned orders.
14. There is no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the Appellant to Respondents No. 1 and 3 within four weeks.
