Delhi High Court
Pankaj Kochhar vs Dda & Ors. on 26 July, 2010
Author: Kailash Gambhir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P(C) 9277/2009
Judgment delivered on: 26.07.2010
PANKAJ KOCHHAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sushil K.Pandey, Advocate.
Versus
DDA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral:
1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks
quashing/setting aside of the impugned judgment and order
dated 21.08.2007 passed by the Appellate Court thereby
upholding the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to explain the
locus of the petitioner to challenge the order of eviction passed
by the Estate Officer in respect of Stall No.7, Block-M, Vikas
Puri, New Delhi. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that
the Stall in question was allotted by the respondent/DDA in
favour of Smt.Vimla Rani and Shri Ankit Kumar being the
auction-purchasers in the auction held on 13.05.1983. It is
further not in dispute that the said auction-purchasers had
substantially and materially changed the status of the said Stall
by raising side walls; by fixing shutters and also by joining two
Stalls i.e. Stalls No.7 and 8.
3. Notice dated 20.02.1990 was served on the said
allottees by the respondent/DDA thereby calling upon them to
show cause as to why under the terms and conditions of the
allotment action of cancellation may not be taken against
them. Another notice dated 19.05.1992 was also issued to the
said allottees being the final notice calling upon them to
remedy the breaches and on failure to do so cancellation of the
allotment with the forfeiture of the earnest money shall follow.
Yet another notice dated 26.08.1992 was issued to the said
allottees and ultimately allotment of the said Stall was
cancelled by the competent authority vide orders dated
12.05.1994. It is also not in dispute that after cancellation of
the said allotment, proceedings for eviction of the allottees
were initiated under the Public Premises Act. Show cause
notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act was served
upon the said allottees, who did not respond to the same. Vide
orders dated 10.05.2001, ex parte order was passed by the
Estate Officer against them. The said order was not challenged
by the said allottees, but by the present petitioner before the
Appellate Authority. The order of the Estate Officer was
challenged on the ground that no notice under Section 4(1) of
the Public Premises Act was issued to the occupant i.e. the
present petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back
by the Appellate Court to the Estate Officer with the direction
to both the parties to appear before the Estate Officer. Fresh
notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act was served
on the petitioner and thereafter proceedings commenced again
before the Estate Officer who passed the eviction order dated
24.03.2003. The said order of the Estate Officer was challenged
by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court and vide
orders dated 21.08.2007, the learned Appellate Court did not
find any infirmity in the order of the Estate Officer.
4. The ground of challenge to assail the eviction order
as well as the order of the Appellate Court taken by the
petitioner is that for carrying out any addition or alteration in
the structure of the allotted stall, proceedings under Section 4
of the Public Premises Act could not be initiated as the relevant
provision under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupant) Act, 1971 could be Section 5 (A) of the said Act.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties at considerable
length and given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments
put forth by them.
6. It is the admitted case of the parties that the lease
of the said stall was never transferred in favour of the
petitioner and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has
illegally purchased the said Stall No.7 from the original
allottees i.e. Smt.Vimla Rani and Shri Ankit Kumar, who had
already suffered an eviction order pursuant to the said violation
made by them in breach of the terms & conditions of the lease.
7. Before the Appellate Court, the petitioner raised a
plea that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to him before
passing the said eviction order. The said plea of the petitioner
was rejected by the Appellate Court after finding from the
record of the Estate Officer that due opportunity of hearing has
been given to the petitioner. The petitioner has also not
disputed the fact that material additions and alterations were
carried out by the original allottees and at no stage they were
remedied despite various show cause notices issued by the
respondent/DDA. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that
the original lease of the allottees was cancelled by the DDA
and an eviction order against the original allottees already
stood in existence when the petitioner had purchased the said
Stall No.7. In fact, as per the petitioner himself, he had
purchased the said Stall No.7 from its original allottees. Clearly,
the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings
of the Estate Officer or the Appellate Court. The petitioner had
purchased the said stall at his own peril as the same was not
only cancelled by the DDA but an eviction order already stood
passed by the Estate Officer in respect of the same. The
petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that
he is entitled for the transfer of the said stall in his favour even
after the cancellation and passing of the eviction order.
8. I find no merit in the present petition and the same
is hereby dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
JULY 26, 2010
dc
