Delhi High Court
Urmila Punera & Anr. vs Uoi & Ors. on 25 March, 2011
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25.03.2011
+ CM No.3259/2011 IN W.P. (C) 19444-45/2006
Urmila Punera & Anr. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Lily Thomas, Advocate
versus
UOI & Ors. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shubhangi Tuli, Advocate for State of
Maharashtra
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES
reported in the Digest?
MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
% CM No.3259/2011 IN W.P. (C) 19444-45/2006
1. Heard counsel for the parties. The writ petitioners had sought various reliefs which
included a direction to the respondent i.e. the State of Maharashtra to provide them
alternative accommodation in the A Block, Sirmur plot, in Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New
Delhi. One of the petitioners apparently filed a previous proceeding, WP(C) No.3095/2001.
That writ petition was dismissed. Other similarly situated litigants were also writ petitioners
in that proceeding.
2. By the final order dated 7th January, 2008, this Court had dismissed the writ petition
C.M. 3259/2011 in W.P. (C) 19444-45/2006 Page 1
in the following terms :
"7. I have examined the materials on record. The residents of the Women‟s
Hostel amongst whom the petitioners court themselves were represented in the
first proceeding in WP(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 relocation
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 Unauthorized 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."
3. The writ petitioners thereafter filed successive applications i.e. CM Nos.6974/2008
and 46/2009. Both of them were dismissed. In these circumstances, the writ petitioner again
sought a direction from the Court through yet another application, CM No.1917/2009. That
application was rejected in the order dated 11.2.2009 in the following terms:
"CM 1917/2009
C.M. 3259/2011 in W.P. (C) 19444-45/2006 Page 2
The applicant/writ petitioner sought a direction to the State of
Maharashtra to allot an alternative accommodation in „A‟ Block in Sirmur
plot was heard by judgment dated 7th January, 2008. The writ petition was
dismissed after considering all the contentions raised. The petitioners during
the course of their submissions had relied upon a notice dated 29.12.1998
requiring vacation from the premises. The Court had also in its judgment
referred to and considered the impact of the previous proceedings culminating
in the judgment in WP(C) No.3095/2001.
The writ petitioner applied by filing CM 6974/2008, contending that
she was entitled to Room Nos.36 and 37 „A‟ Block, given in relocation
pursuant to order of the Court dated 27.12.2006. That application i.e. CM
No.6974/2008 was rejected on 03.09.2008. Subsequently another application
on same lines was moved being CM No.46/2009. The Court rejected that
application too on 07.01.2009.
In the present application, the petitioner, has made the same averments
and sought recall of order dated 03.09.2008 and 07.01.2009. It is contended
in this application that CM No.6974/2008 was dismissed without hearing
counsel for the respondent. The record of proceeding dated 03.09.2008
discloses that both parties were represented. In these circumstances, the order
dated 07.01.2009, dismissing CM No.46/2009, cannot be found fault with.
Having considered the materials on record and the submissions of
parties, the Court is of the opinion that the present application is not
maintainable. It is accordingly rejected."
4. In these circumstances and the background, the writ petitioners have again sought
directions from the Court by way of a clarification that the order dated 7th January, 2008 did
not dismiss but had in fact allowed the writ petition and secondly also seeking a substantial
amount i.e. `20 lakhs as compensation for allegedly defrauding the Court.
5. Learned counsel argues that the interim order crystallized into enforceable right which
led the Court, while disposing the writ petition, on 7th January, 2008 to reserve liberty to
claim the right to be put back into possession. It is argued that the State of Maharashtra
dispossessed the Petitioners and demolished the premises but did not comply with the Court
directions.
6. This Court has considered the pleadings and overall circumstances of the case. The
final order of 7th January, 2008 has traced the history of litigation concerning the plot upon
C.M. 3259/2011 in W.P. (C) 19444-45/2006 Page 3
which the history was built. The Court while dismissing the Writ Petition, 19444-45/2006,
clarified that the writ petitioners could prefer an appeal under Section 9 of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The Court stated that the
concerned appellate authority would entertain and dispose of the appeal if it was preferred
within two weeks without being hindered by the question of limitation. It is unclear as to
whether the writ petitioners availed the said liberty.
7. Whatever be that position the petitioners admit that their effort to have final order
clarified was unsuccessful on three previous occasions. Having regard to these facts, the
claim for compensation and the right to be put back into possession into alternative
accommodation cannot be entertained in this manner. The petitioners have also not cared to
throw light on whether the appeal against the eviction order succeeded and if at all the
petitioners availed the liberty granted by the Court.
8. Furthermore, this Court is alive to the circumstance that the right to claim
compensation is a substantive one and cannot be dealt with by the manner sought to be done
by the petitioners, through an application in a disposed of Writ Petition.
9. In these circumstances, the application is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
MARCH 25, 2011
vld
C.M. 3259/2011 in W.P. (C) 19444-45/2006 Page 4
