The appellate bench held that the Single Judge failed to address the disputed issue regarding the Block Development Officer’s jurisdiction. The eviction order was set aside, and the writ petition was remanded to be heard afresh by the Single Judge.
The eviction order is set aside; the writ petition is heard afresh by the Single Judge on 20th March, 2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~13
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
The appellant’s grievance is that the proceedings which led to its eviction order in this case relating to Khasra nos. 24/2 and 24/7 of Village Narela, were unauthorised. He claimed to be an allottee in the 20 Point Programme formulated by the Central Government and in continuation of the enjoyment of the land since 1978.
Claiming that the appellant is an encroacher, local authorities i.e. the Block Development Officer initiated proceedings which led to the demolition of construction in Khasra no. 24/7.
The appellant had approached this Court at that time by filing writ petition no. 4760/2012 which was disposed of on 07.08.2012. The Court had directed the respondents to issue show cause notice before proceeding to evict the petitioner.
In the second round, as it were, the petitioner represented resisting the show cause notice and contended that he was a lawful occupant in terms of the directions made previously and more importantly, that the Block Development Officer was not authorised by law (under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954) to
make any adverse orders.
The appellant relied upon Sections 84 and 86A of the said Act to say that the jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant was that of the Revenue Assistant. The representation was rejected and subsequently, the petitioner’s challenge to the eviction order was also rejected.
This Court has gone through the materials on record.
It is evident that right from the inception, the petitioner/appellant had been questioning the authority of the Block Development Officer (who is the appropriate authority upon the directions of the Deputy Commissioner). However, the Single Judge has not dealt with this aspect.
In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the question as to whether the procedure as mandated by law, including the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, was followed and, if not, its consequences, should be gone into by the Single Judge.
The order is hereby set aside.
The writ petition shall be now heard afresh and finding rendered on this aspect. The parties are directed to appear before the Single Judge on 20th March, 2018.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 06, 2018/P
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge examined the authority of the Block Development Officer as mandated by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 before the eviction order.
Whether the procedure under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was followed in the eviction proceedings.
Whether the eviction order should be remanded to the Single Judge for inquiry into the jurisdictional question.
Prem Singh
Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors
S. Ravindra Bhat
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
