Mange Ram Bhardwaj Thr Lrs v. Union of India & Ors

V-S-1

06.12.2013 Present: Mr. R.K. Saini, Ms. Vivya Nagpal and Mr. Mayur Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. RajeeveMehra, ASG with Mr. SurrieetPushkama,CGSC with Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advocates for UOI a/w Mr. C.D. Mishra, S.O./ASI R.P. No.384/2012 in LPA No.451/2012

¶1The captionedpetitionhas been filedto seekreviewofthe orderdated

04.06.2012. To be noted, vide order dated 04.06.2012, we had dismissedthe appealpreferredby the reviewpetitioneragainstthe orderdated 21.05.2012 passedbythe learnedSingleJudgein W.P.(C).No.515/1989.

¶2The learned Single Judge had sustained the order passed by the District Judge in an appeal preferred by the review petitionerunder the PublicPremises(EvictionofUnauthorisedOccupants)Act, 1971 ("PP Act") and pertinentlythe evictionorderdated 11.12.1987.

¶3The reason,we had entertainedthe reviewpetition,was on accountof the fact that the review petitionerplaced reliance on a lease deed dated

29.11.1939(in shortthe lease deed) executedby the then GovernorGeneral in Council in favour of the Secretary,Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha(Sabha). The documentwas presentedby one Mr. Kesar Chand, s/o late Mr. Thakar Das Khatri; "service of 14 MahadevRoad, New Delhi", in his capacityas the Secretary of the said Sabha.

¶4The review petitioner,is the son of late Mr. Mange Ram Bhardwaj, who claims to be a licensee of the aforementioned Sabha.

¶5Since determination of this issue would require evidence to be led, we propose to remand the matter to the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer will determine as to whether rights, if any, flowed in favour of Mr. Mange Ram Bhardwaj, and thereafter, in favour of the review petitioner. Needless to say, the Estate Officer will also determine whether the lease deed in issue, would come in the way of the respondents taking out proceedings against him under the PP Act.

¶6We must note before concluding, broadly, the stand of the ^ respondentsherein i.e. Union of India. The respondentsclaimthat they have the requisite authorityto take out proceedingunder the PP Act, by virtue of notification dated 23.10.1913; which is appended at page 29 of the paper book and marked as Annexure A-3.

¶7It is made clear that the Estate Officer will conclude the proceedings in this behalf, with expedition, though not later than three months. No accommodation shall be accorded to the parties except for exceptional grounds.

¶8It is also made clear that the Estate Officer shall be free to pass an appropriateorder afterreturninga findingon the aforesaidissues.

¶9The parties and the counsel shall appear before the Estate Officeron

04.01.2014 at 11:00 a.m. The registry will send a copy of this order to the Estate Officer; albeit without insistence on the process fee. The registry wouldalsosend a copy of this orderto the DistrictJudge,who shouldensure that the record in the case, if any, availablewith him is remittedforthwithto the Estate Officer.

¶10In the interregnum, the review petitioner shall not be dispossessed in respect of the area which is covered by the Mandir as mentioned in Appendix A attached to the lease deed.

¶11Resultantly order dated 04.06.2012 is recalled. Appeal is allowed. Needless to say, the direction contained in paragraph 10 above will abide by the final order of the Estate Officer. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Dasti. DECEMBER 06, 2013 sr VIPIN SANGHI, J RAJIV SHAKDHER, J