The Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the demolition of a shop. Relying on precedent, the Court held that the petitioner's occupation was unauthorized as their license had not been renewed or transferred by inheritance. Consequently, no rehabilitation or compensation is granted.
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.
$~76
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. R.M Tiwari, Mr. Manmohan Jha, Advocates along with Petitioner in person
versus
LAND AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ANR.
.....Respondents Through: Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Mr. Swamy, Advocates
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 11.09.2024
1 “Subject Property”
W.P.(C) 12777/2024 Page 1 of 5
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 11:01:24
demolition constitutes an unlawful action as Respondent No. 1 did not give any notice to the Petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 19712 or even terminate the tenancy of the Petitioner’s father. Therefore, it is argued that the demolition action is liable to be set aside. Further, it is contended that the Petitioner and his father were in continuous interrupted lawful possession of the Subject Property since the year 1951, and therefore, on account of wrongful eviction and demolition of their shop, they are entitled to be granted alternate accommodation as well as compensation of INR 10 lakhs along with interest.
“12. This Court has heard the arguments of Mr. Rajiv Khosla, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, perused the impugned judgement and considered the documents on record.
13. At the outset, we find it relevant to consider the status of the appellants qua the subject land/hutments. It is not denied by any of the parties that the predecessors-in-interest and grandfathers of the present appellants were in occupation of the subject land/hutments as licencees. It is also not disputed that the Khyber Hostel was being used as hostel services for the serving officers of the armed forces. It is also not disputed that none of the appellants were inducted into the hutments by way of a licence. As per the learned counsel for the respondents the last of such serving officers had
2 Public Premises Act
3 Titled “Sanjay Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.”
Page 2 of 5
W.P.(C) 12777/2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 11:01:24
left the hostel in the year 1993. It is also not disputed that the predecessors-in-interest and grandfathers of the present appellants were inducted as licencees in the said subject lands/hutments only for the purpose of serving the officers who were occupying the Khyber Hostel. Thus, it can be safely concluded that post 1993, the services of the original licencees were probably not required further. It has also come on record that barring appellant nos. 5 and 7, no other appellant has been able to demonstrate how they got possession of the said hutments. It is also not disputed that even appellant nos. 5 and 7 admit to have paid licence fee only till the year 2001 and not thereafter. In such factual circumstances, it cannot be said that the licence, particularly in the case of appellant nos. 5 and 7, continued even after the year 2001. So far as the other appellants are concerned, there being no document in their favour on record, cannot be held to having legal possession of the subject lands/hutments. It is trite that no interest in the land passes over to the licencee under a license. The occupation of a particular area under licence is valid till such license is either revoked or expires by efflux of time. Any such occupation thereafter would be, in the facts of the present case, unauthorized . The license issued to an individual, cannot be transferred by inheritance, unless expressly provided for. Admittedly, the present appellants are the third generation of the original licencees. That being the case, their occupation is not only unauthorized but also tantamount to trespass upon such subject lands/hutment. Thus, the appellants would be rank trespassers on such premises. We are fortified in our view by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Chandu Lal (supra). It would be apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs hereunder:-
“25. There is a catena of authorities in support of the proposition, that in the case of a license there is something less than a right to enjoy the property in the license; it cannot be exercise by servants and agents and is terminable while on the other hand, in the case of a lease, there is a transfer of a right to enjoy the property or in other words the lessee is entitled to enjoy the property. A bare licensee having no interest in the property cannot maintain an action for its possession. A mere licensee has only a right to use the property. Such a right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property but is only a personal privilege to the licensee. After the termination of the license, the licensor is entitled to deal with the property as he likes. This right he gets as an owner in possession of his property. He need not secure a decree of the Court to obtain this right. He is entitled to resist in defence of his property the attempts of a trespasser to come upon his property by exerting the necessary and reasonable force to expel a trespasser. If however, the licensor uses excessive force, he
Page 3 of 5
W.P.(C) 12777/2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 11:01:24
may make himself liable to be punished under a prosecution, but he will infringe no right of the licensee. No doubt a person in exclusive possession of the property is prima facie to be considered to be a tenant, nevertheless he would not be held to be so if the circumstances negative any intention to create a tenancy.
27. The Supreme Court recently in Board of Revenue etc. v. A.M. Ansari etc., (1976) 3 SCC 512 : AIR 1976 S.C. 1813 (10), retreated the position in law in this respect succinctly stating that it is the creation of an interest in immovable property or a right to possess it that distinguishes a lease from a licence. A license does not create an interest in the property to which it relates while a lease does. There is in other words transfer of a right to enjoy the property in case of a lease. Further it was observed as to whether a particular transaction creates a lease or a license is always a question of intention of the parties which is to be inferred from the circumstances of each case.”
In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the learned Full Bench, it is, in the facts of the present case, apparent that the appellants would be rank trespassers who would have no right or interest over the subject lands/hutment. To this extent, the action undertaken by the respondents cannot be found fault with.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Page 4 of 5
W.P.(C) 12777/2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 11:01:24
agreement and legal formalities. Thus, the Petitioner’s long possession as a tenant of the Subject Property cannot for the basis of setting aside the impugned demolition action. The said reasoning shall apply to the present case, and thus, the Petitioner’s submissions in this regard are untenable.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2024/ab
Page 5 of 5
W.P.(C) 12777/2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 11:01:24
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the demolition of the subject property by the Respondent without notice under the Public Premises Act renders the action unlawful.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to rehabilitation or compensation for the demolition of the property occupied under a license that expired.
Whether a license issued to a predecessor can be transferred by inheritance to subsequent generations to create legal possession.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) 3307/2024Referred¶17
LPA 591/2024Referred¶17
Chandu LalRelied on¶25
Board of Revenue etc. v. A.M. Ansari etc.Relied on¶27
Board of Revenue etc. v. A.M. Ansari etc., (1976) 3 SCC 512 : AIR 1976 S.C. 1813 (10) · Who else cites this
Bhagwan Dass
Land and Development Officer
Respondent No. 2
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
