Pran Nath Bararoo vs Estate Officer & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 1703 Del

$~R-12
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      LPA No. 608/2008

       PRAN NATH BARAROO                       ..... Appellant
                    Through: Mr B.L.Wali, Advocate

                   VERSUS
       ESTATE OFFICER & ANR.                     ..... Respondents
                    Through:

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                          ORDER

% 15.04.2013

1. The appellant before us hails from Jammu and Kashmir and was working in

Border Security Force (BSF). He was allotted a Govt. accommodation bearing

No.C-326, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi before he superannuated on 30th June, 2005.

Since he did not vacate the Govt. accommodation even after the prescribed period

of eight months for which he could retain the said accommodation after his

superannuation, proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction and Unauthorized

LPA No. 608/2008 page 1 of 6 Occupants) Act were instituted against him. The eviction order passed against

him by the Estate Officer was upheld by the appellate Court. The appellant then

filed a WP (C) No.6543/2008 taking the plea that being a Kashmiri Pandit, he was

not in a position to return to his native place on account of state of turmoil

prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir. The learned Single Judge found no merit in the

petition but while dismissing the petition, he granted six months' time to the

appellant, subject to payment of normal licence fee and his filing an undertaking to

vacate the Govt. accommodation within six months from the date of the order.

Being aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant/writ petitioner

did not file any undertaking in terms of the order passed by the learned Single

Judge on 19.9.2008 and he continues to occupy the Govt. accommodation on the

strength of the interim order passed by this Court directing the respondents to

maintain status quo in respect of possession of the quarter in question during the

pendency of the appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the decision

of a Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA

LPA No. 608/2008 page 2 of 6 No.332/2011 and connected matters. In those cases, the respondent in the appeals

were Kashmiri Pandits having permanent residence in State of Jammu and

Kashmir. They were employees of the Central Govt. and most of them posted in

Kashmir on account of turbulence of state, putting their lives in danger. They were

transferred by the Govt. to Delhi. On being posted in Delhi, they were provided

Govt. accommodation, which they could retain till their retirement. However, they

did not vacate the Govt. accommodation taking the plea that the prevailing

conditions in Jammu and Kashmir were not conducive enough to ensure their safe

return to their respective native place and therefore they were forced to stay in

Delhi. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitions filed by

them. Being aggrieved from the order of the learned Single Judge, Union of India

filed appeals which came to be disposed of, vide order dated 1st June, 2012.

Though, the Division Bench did not find any fault with the directions given by the

learned Single Judge, it was directed that the said directions of the learned Single

Judge were given keeping in view the salient and peculiar facts of those cases and

therefore could not be treated as general directions in all types of cases pertaining

LPA No. 608/2008 page 3 of 6 to Right to Shelter. The following views taken in the aforesaid judgment is

relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal

".....Directions are circumscribed by the following peculiar features of the instant case:

(i) All these respondents were the employees of Central Government who were posted in Srinagar, J&K at the relevant time.

(ii) Because of the turbulent conditions and turmoil in the valley coupled with the fact that lives of these respondents and their family members were in gross danger, the Government itself took the decision to transfer them from Srinagar to Delhi. While in Delhi, they were allotted the Government accommodation.

(iii) These respondents have their houses in Kashmir which have been destroyed by the extremists and they have not been able to reconstruct/restore them.

(iv) These respondents or their families have no other residence in any part of the country.

(v) Though they have retired, they are not in a position to go back to their native place because conditions are still not favourable for their save LPA No. 608/2008 page 4 of 6 return back to the valley.

(vi) Respondents want to enforce their right to shelter only till such time conditions are conducive for their safe return to their homes or till the time Government provides alternate accommodation."

4. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the case of the

appellant/petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision since he also was

an employee of the Central Govt. who was posted in Sri Nagar, he was also

transferred by the Govt. of Sri Nagar to Delhi on account of danger to his family,

he also had a house in Kashmir which has been destroyed by the extremists and has

not been able to reconstruct/restore the same, he or his family do not have any

other residence in any part of the country and he is not in a position to go back to

his native place, since the conditions prevailing in the State of Jammu and

Kashmir are not favourable to his safe return.

5. Considering that the aforesaid judgment came to be delivered much after the

impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge and the case of the

appellant has not been examined on the parameters

LPA No. 608/2008 page 5 of 6 laid down by the Division Bench, we are of the view that the matter needs to be

remitted back to the learned Single for passing a fresh order, after considering the

case of the appellant/petitioner in the light of the above referred decision of the

Division Bench.

6. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 19.9.2008 and remit the

matter back to the learned Single Judge for passing a fresh order after considering

the case of the appellant/petitioner in the light of the decision of the Division

Bench dated 1.6.2012 in LPA No.332/2011 and connected matters.

7. The parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge on 6th May, 2013.

The appeal stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

V.K. JAIN, J.

APRIL 15, 2013
ks

LPA No. 608/2008                                          page 6 of 6