Delhi High Court
Kamla Devi (Since Decd.) Thr. Lrs. vs Chief Settlement Commissioner & ... on 22 July, 2010
Author: Manmohan
#22-23
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 359/2010
PUNNURAM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee,
Advocate
versus
CHIEF SETTLEMENT
COMMISSIONER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate
for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Anil Nauriya with
Ms. Sunita Hazarika, Advocates
for R-4.
AND
+ LPA 365/2010
KAMLA DEVI (SINCE DECD.)
THR. LRS. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee,
Advocate
versus
CHIEF SETTLEMENT
COMMISSIONER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate
for R-1 & 2.
Mr. Anil Nauriya with
Ms. Sunita Hazarika, Advocates
for R-3.
% Date of Decision: 22nd July, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
LPA Nos. 359/2010 & 365/2010 Page 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J.
CM 9413-9414/2010 in LPA 359/2010 & CM 9675-9676/2010 in
LPA 365/2010
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, applications stand disposed of.
CM 9677/2010 in LPA 365/2010
This is an application for condonation of delay of 11 days in re-
filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 11 days in re-
filing the appeal is condoned.
Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
LPA 359/2010 with CM 9412/2010 and LPA 365/2010 with CM
9674/2010
1. These two Letters Patent Appeals, being LPA Nos. 359/2010 and
365/2010, have been filed challenging the common judgment and order
dated 25th March, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the
writ petitions filed by Appellants herein have been dismissed with costs
of Rs. 10,000/- each to the Union of India and Guru Ravi Dass Mandir
Prabhandhak Committee (in short "GRMPC"). The learned Single
Judge also held the two writ petitions to be an abuse of process of law.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the present appeals are that the
Appellants filed writ petitions praying for a direction to the Chief
Settlement Commissioner and Union of India to allot to the Appellants
an additional strip of land measuring 100 sq. yrd. adjoining Northern
part of petitioners' Quarter No. 96, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as "disputed land"). It was further prayed that
the Settlement Commissioner and the Union of India as well as
"GRMPC" should be restrained from dispossessing the Appellants from
the disputed land.
3. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellants had initially filed a
suit for mandatory injunction being Suit No. 724/1984 before the
Senior Sub-Judge. On 16th January, 1987 the Senior Sub-Judge
dismissed the application for interim injunction holding that the
Appellants were in unauthorised occupation of the disputed land. Even
an appeal filed by the Appellants being MCA No. 24/1987 against the
aforesaid order was dismissed by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge.
4. However, before final judgment could be delivered in the suit,
Appellants withdrew said suit and filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C)
1557/1988 with an identical prayer. Earlier, Division Bench in LPA
proceedings arising out of the said writ petition directed the Settlement
Commissioner to proceed ahead with the eviction proceedings under
Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short
"DPCR Act) and also directed that Appellants should not be
dispossessed till further orders are passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. In proceedings under DPCR Act, the Settlement Commissioner
held the Appellants to be unauthorised occupants of the disputed land.
The Settlement Commissioner also held the disputed land to be part of
plot No. J-2, Rampuri already allotted to the GRMPC.
6. Even the appeal filed by the Appellants under Section 22 of
DPCR Act was dismissed. Thereafter even a revision petition filed by
the Appellants was also dismissed.
7. It was against the aforesaid orders that the present writ petitions
were filed before the learned Single Judge which were also dismissed
vide the impugned order.
8. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned counsel for Appellants
challenged the veracity of the lay out plan furnished by the respondents
which showed the disputed land to be part of plot J-2. In this
connection, learned counsel for Appellants relied upon the reply
affidavit filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 in Civil Writ Petition No.
1557/1988, which reads as under :-
"7......It is stated that the marking of all the plots in „J‟ Block
was done much earlier before putting these plots for auction
in the year 1970. It is specifically denied that there was no
„J‟ Block in the said area."
9. Mr. Banerjee also relied upon the guidelines dated 23rd February,
1970 and 14th December, 1973 issued by the Government of India
whereby an additional strip of land adjoining the quarter was also liable
to be allotted to the occupier of the quarter.
10. Learned counsel for respondents disputed the aforesaid
submissions of learned counsel for the Appellants. According to them,
the Appellants are unauthorised occupants of disputed land as it forms
part of plot J-2, which plot was allotted to GRDMPC way back in 1971.
They referred to and relied upon the findings in the proceedings
mentioned hereinabove.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents also drew our attention to
the prima facie findings recorded by the Senior Sub-Judge in Suit No.
724/1984 as well as to the findings recorded by the Additional Senior-
Sub Judge, Delhi in the appeal filed by the Appellants being MCA No.
24/1987. By virtue of the said two orders, the Appellants' application
for interim relief in the suit was rejected.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we are of the view that the
Appellants have no right, title or interest in the disputed land. The
authorities below have given concurrent finding of fact that the disputed
land is not adjacent to the Appellants' Quarter No. 96 but is part of the
Plot J-2. The reply affidavit relied upon by the Appellants does not
prove that the Appellants had any right, title or interest in the disputed
land. The said reply affidavit does not indicate leave alone confirm that
the disputed land is located adjacent to the quarter owned by the
Appellants. In any event, we are of the opinion that the findings arrived
at by the statutory authorities under the DPCR Act are neither perverse
nor mala fide or contrary to record. In fact, the learned Single Judge
after referring to the proceedings in the Courts and authorities below
has observed as under :-
"16. It is difficult for this Court to appreciate how in the
light of above categorical findings of fact, the petitioners can
still urge that they are in lawful possession of the additional
strip of land. The findings on disputed questions of fact
having been returned prima facie by the civil courts, and
thereafter upon a detailed examination of the records by the
authorities under the DPCR Act against the petitioner. They
cannot possibly be re-examined in the present proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The concurrent
findings of facts of the statutory authorities under the DPCR
Act are not shown by the petitioners to be either perverse,
malafide or contrary to the record. There are absolutely no
grounds made out for interference with the said well-
reasoned orders.
17. It is submitted that the petitioners have constructed
two shops on the additional piece of land and also have a
garden behind the shops. The petitioners rely upon a report
of the Local Commissioner in support of this contention. This
cannot advance the case of the petitioners at all in view of the
categorical findings that the said piece of land is neither an
„additional‟ strip nor a corner plot. The petitioners have not
been able to show how they have any right to the said
additional piece of land."
13. Accordingly, present appeals and applications being, devoid of
merit, are dismissed but with no order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
JULY 22, 2010
rn
