Preeti Sharma & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority
2020 Latest Caselaw 334 Del

$~27
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 20th January, 2020

+      LPA 23/2020

       PREETI SHARMA & ANR                                   ..... Appellants
                    Through:             Ms. Sumi Anand, Adv. with
                                         Ms.Vishnushree Dalmia, Adv.

                                versus

        DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY              ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, SC for DDA with
                             Ms. Komal Sorout, Adv.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

                          JUDGMENT

% 20.01.2020

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners whose writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2802/2017 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 18th October, 2019, which is at Annexure A-1.

2. Factual matrix

2.1 The appellants are the original petitioners of W.P.(C) No.2802/2017.

2.2 It appears that the appellants are claiming to be the legal heirs of Smt. Lilawati Sharma.

2.3 The said Smt. Lilawati Sharma, as alleged by the appellants, was a lease-holder of bathing Ghat No. 11 of River Yamuna.

2.4 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that bathing Ghats were removed by the respondents and hence several writ petitions were preferred earlier in which order was passed by this Court about the constitution of the "Yamuna Removal of Encroachment Monitoring Committee" (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the DDA") to take a decision for giving alternative plot to the occupants of bathing Ghats.

2.5 The said Committee recommended for an alternative plot to be given to Smt. Lilawati Sharma.

2.6 Smt. Lilawati Sharma expired on 28th October, 2007.

2.7 The appellants are claiming to be the legal heirs of Lilawati Sharma and hence on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee, they are in search of allotment of an alternative plot. Therefore an application was preferred by the appellants before the DDA.

2.8 The DDA, vide detailed speaking order dated 19th February, 2016, dismissed the claim of the appellants.

2.9 Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the speaking order passed by the DDA, dated 19th February, 2016, writ petition was preferred by these appellants being W.P.(C) 2802/2017.

2.10 The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 18th October, 2019. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that these appellants claim themselves to be the legal heirs of Smt. Lilawati Sharma.

4. As per submissions of counsel for the appellants, the said Lilawati Sharma was given, on lease, Ghat No. 11 at Yamuna River, Delhi and in an earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) 2344/2007, an order was passed on 28 th March, 2007, whereby the Committee was directed to take a decision for giving an alternative accommodation. Ultimately, the Committee recommended for an alternative accommodation, but, later on, vide order dated 7th September, 2010 in Civil Appeal No. 1688/2007 and Civil Appeal No. 1691/2007 (page 166 of this appeal), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the said Committee has no authority, power and jurisdiction to make allotment of an alternative plot to the occupants of the bathing Ghats.

5. It also appears from the facts of the case that looking to the order dated 19th February, 2016, passed by the respondent - DDA, (Annexure P-

17), there is no valid extension of the lease deed and the lease granted earlier, had come to an end after expiry of five years. Thus, there is no

justifiable reason for the original petitioners to get any alternative accommodation on the basis of the expired lease deed.

6. Moreover, whether the original petitioners are legal heirs of late Smt. Lilawati Sharma, or not, is also yet to be established/decided.

7. The reasons given by the respondent-DDA, for rejection of the claim of the original petitioners, have been mentioned in the order dated 19th February, 2016 (Annexure P-17). For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of order dated 19th February, 2016, passed by the respondent, are reproduced as under:

"The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

Thus, by virtue of the order dated 07/09/2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court all the interim orders passed by the High Court of Delhi in writ petition civil 2412 of 2002 were set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further made it clear that the findings recorded by the division bench of the High Court shall not constitute a precedent for any purpose whatsoever and the directions contained therein shall not be binding on the appellants. Therefore, after the said order, was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the committees constituted by the division bench vide order dated 16/11/2005 ceased to exist. In view of the clear orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court a conclusion is irresistible that any recommendation made by the committee during the period of its existence would have no binding force in the wild penal.

Thus, the recommendations of Monitoring Committee are not binding upon the parties in view of the aforementioned observation of the Supreme Court. The contention in the representation that the decision of the Committee be treated as orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi does not support their claim.

The Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in writ petition no. 2029/2012 titled Abdul Shakeel v/s DDA & Ors. Vide order dated 0.3.04.2013 was pleased to hold inter alia as under:-

"Another important aspect in this regard is that according to the DDA, there is no habitation at all on the land in question and, therefore, there can be no question of rehabilitation of any person occupying the said land. We have perused the aerial images filed by DDA along with its reply as well as the photographs available on the file. It is quite clear from a perusal of these documents that the land in question is not being used for human habitation and is being used only for farming purposes. Few thatch huts appear in the photographs field with the petition, but they appear to be the huts put up for the purpose of safeguarding the crops and not for human habitation. That being the position, there can be no question of the respondents providing for rehabilitation of the persons who are in illegal occupation of the said land. Once the land in question is acquired, no one has a legal right to continue farming on the said land and such activity by the encroachers would be per se illegal. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE V.K. JAIN. J.

APRIL. 03, 2013"

8. The aforesaid order was challenged by the original petitioners in W.P.(C) 2802/2017 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 18th October, 2019.

9. We have carefully perused the judgment and order dated 18th October, 2019 of the learned Single Judge. We see no reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the judgment and order dated 18th October, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, as no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the W.P.(C) 2802/2017, and also there is no error

committed by the DDA, while passing the order dated 19 th February, 2016 (Annexure P-17).

10. It appears that the original petitioners have failed to establish any right in their favour. The so-called lease in favour of Smt. Lilawati Sharma is also no more in existence. The said lease was given only for a specific purpose and not for residential purpose, as stated at page 129 of this Letters Patent Appeal where the order of the DDA dated 19th February, 2016 has been annexed as Annexure P-17.

11. The background facts which are mentioned in the order dated 19 th February, 2016 (Annexure P-17), read as under:

"Brief background of case is as under:-

The representationist claims that she is the successor in interest of Purshottam Dass Sharrna in respect of lease executed between two parties namely, (i) Shri Radhey Mohan s/o Shri Puran Chand, (ii) Shri Ram Nath s/o Shri TuIsi Ram and (iii) Shri Purshottam Dass s/o Shri Chummu Mal (91/C), resident of Ganidi Gali, Delhi as party number one and notified area Committee through its President as party number two. The salient features of the lease are as under: -

1. The lease was granted for the purposes of Bathing Ghat for the convenience of Hindu public on payment of rent.

2. The lease was not allowed to use the Ghat, as place of worship, set the idol or God or premises similar site being so use by end other lessee.

3. No building be erected on the said site.

4. No portion of site shall be used for residential purpose.

5. The lessee was maintained building in proper shape by restore during the currency of the lease.

6. The lessee shall access to all the visitor of Hindu saint who come there to river.

7. The period of lease was for 5 years and it would expire by afflux of time if not renewed.

8. On the determination of the lease, unless renewed the lease shall peaceful yield possession of the site.

There is no document whatsoever produced to support that lease was ever renewed or extended. In the absence of renewal of lease the erstwhile lessor became unauthorized occupants of Ghat No.11. Demolition was carried out pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 03.03.2003 in W.P.(C) No.2112/2002.

"We, therefore, direct all the authorities concerned, i.e. DDA, MCD, PWD, DJB as well as the Central Government to forthwith remove all the unauthorized structures, jhuggies, places of worship and/or other structure which are unauthorisedly put in Yamuna Bed and its embankment, within two months from today."

12. Thus, the original petitioners have failed to establish any right in their favour. The lease deed was never in existence. The so-called lease deed in favour of Smt. Lilawati Sharma was only for five years and that too, it was given for bathing purpose and not for any other purposes.

13. Moreover, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1688/2007 and Civil Appeal No. 1691/2007 (page 166 of this appeal), the Committee cannot give any alternative accommodation in view of the dismissal of W.P.(C) Nos. 4441/1994 and 2112/2002. The order dated 7th September, 2010, passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1688/2007 and Civil Appeal No. 1691/2007, reads as under:-

"In terms of signed order placed on the file, Writ Petition Nos.4441/1994 and 2112/2002, which are pending before the High Court of Delhi are withdrawn to this Court and dismissed. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside. It is also made clear that the findings recorded by the Division

Bench of the High Court shall not constitute precedent for any purpose whatsoever and the directions contained therein shall not be binding on the appellants.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

Civil Appeal Nos.l692 of 2007, 1690 of 2007 and 1689 of 2007:

By a separate order passed today in C.A. Nos.1688/2007 and 1691/2007, we have allowed withdrawal of the writ petitions pending before the High Court including the one filed by Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata Sangh.

In view of the above and in terms of signed order placed on the file, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court of Delhi for fresh disposal of the Letters Patent Appeals. Till the disposal of the appeals, the parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession, as it is obtaining today. This would necessarily mean that the respondents shall not dispossess the appellants from the present sites and the latter shall neither alter character of the sites nor alienate the same to any other person in any manner whatsoever.

As a sequel to disposal of the appeals, all the pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of."

14. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the constitution of the Committee and the recommendation of the Committee are non-est in the eyes of law.

15. Hence, no error has been committed by the respondent-DDA, while passing the order dated 19th February, 2016 (Annexure P-17) as well as no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing W.P(C) 2802/2017, as we are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge.

16. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

CM APPL. Nos. 1707-1709/2020

1. In view of the disposal of the appeal, these applications stand disposed of.

                                                           CHIEF JUSTICE


JANUARY 20, 2020/dsn                                C.HARI SHANKAR, J.