Urmila Punera And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 27 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondent State of Maharashtra to give them alternative accommodation in 'A' Block in Sirmur Plot.

2. A working women's Hostel known as Western House was located in four buildings in Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. It is part of an property known as Sermur. In 1964, the Central Government, acting through the Ministry of Urban Development took possession of the property and continued to manage the Hostel. The petitioners claim to be residents as licensees in those premises. On 29.12.1998 the President of India as Lesser permitted handing over of the possession of the plot, which apparently originally belong to the State of Maharashtra. The letter also contained a condition that possession would be handed over to the Government of Maharashtra only after relocation of the occupants at the cost of the State Government and that the CPWD/Directorate would take all steps to evict all those, if necessary, while relocating them elsewhere.

3. Sometime in 2001 apprehending threat of eviction of the residents who lived in the Working Women's Hostel, the All India Democratic Women's Association filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 3095/2001 seeking several reliefs. On 16th May, 2001 this Court issued an interim order direction that no demolition should take place unless the eviction orders were finalized. Later, after noticing the purport and intent of the letter dated 29.12.1998, this Court disposed off that writ petition inter alia stating as follows:

5. 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. Maninder Singh that some of the occupants have been occupying premises for considerable period of time for more than one or two decades and public interest or 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.

6. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed as not maintainable.

4. The petitioners state that on 29.12.1998 a notice was given to them to vacate the premises within a day since renovation work in the new Maharashtra Saddan was scheduled to begin. They sought for one year's time to vacate i.e. 31st December, 2005. In these circumstances, they approached this Court for the reliefs claimed.

5. After notice was issued, the State of Maharashtra has entered appearance and filed its returns. It avers that the petition is an abuse of process of Court and that in the previous proceeding i.e. W.P.(C) 3095/2001, the first petition was a party, being a second writ petitioner. It is averred that the petitioner had filed a review proceeding against the judgment disposing off W.P.(C) 3095/2001. The review petition was dismissed on 22.11.2002. Thereafter, the petitioners with several other occupants of the Hostel filed writ petitions being W.P.(C) 176/2004 and W.P.(C) 9673/2003 and connected cases. A copy of the judgment dated 28th April, 2005 has been filed. It is claimed that the Court rejected all contentions about illegality of the notice of termination of license and dismissed the writ petitions on 28th April, 2005. Subsequently, the respondent acting through a Special Commissioner issued eviction notice under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act on 9.5.2005, to the first petitioner and on 12.1.2004 to the second petitioner. The reasoned order in respect of the second petitioner has also been placed on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions in the pleadings. Besides, he submitted that the petitioners were not even informed about eviction proceedings. In these circumstances, the direction issued to them to evict the premises is utterly arbitrary and unlawful. Counsel also urged that the respondent could not have legally eviction the petitioners without first relocating them.

7. I have examined the materials on record. The residents of the Women's Hostel amongst whom the petitioners count themselves were represented in the first proceeding in W.P.(C) 3095/2001. Indeed the first petitioner was a party to those proceedings. Initially, an interim order was made not to be evicted the occupants till the eviction proceedings have been finalized. However, the final order rejected all their contentions and the Court expressed its view that the writ petition was not maintainable as it sought a declaration in respect of the title to the property, the review petition too was dismissed. The first petitioner then filed another writ petition which has not even been disclosed in these proceedings. Here, the relief claimed was a direction against the respondents not to evict her and the other before giving suitable accommodation/relocation. Other petitioners occupants too had sought identical directions. That writ petition too was rejected and the Court held that being an allottee was a relevant consideration for entitlement to re-location and that it did not, in any manner, implead the power of the authorities to issue eviction order.

8. After receiving notices of eviction in 2004 and 2005, writ petitioners in fact sought for accommodation and clearly stated that they would vacate the premises within a year. Having regard to the history of this litigation and the surrounding circumstances outlined, I am of the opinion that the reliefs claimed cannot be granted at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners had sought a one year's time to vacate the premises; even that period is now over. In these circumstances, if they have any grievance under the orders of eviction, it is open for them to prefer an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. Since these petitions have been pending interim orders were made. If such appeals are preferred within two weeks, the appellate authority shall consider and dispose off them in accordance with law without considering the issue of limitation. It is clarified that this order is not, in any manner, reflective of the petitioners' claim for relocation. Subsequent to the letters of the Union Government and the previous orders of the Court, the right to enforce the claim for that purpose is hereby reserved.

9. The writ petitions and all pending applications are dismissed so far as the claim made in these petitions is concerned subject to the liberty reserved above.