Ahsan Ali v. Jamia Millia Islamia University

1 There are five pe1S^n^||e,^^Si|^p|i^^^T^y'are aggrieved by the common impugned order dated 20.'02^20r5'Vide which the learned District Judge in its capacity as the appellate body ofthe Estate Officer had endorsed the findings returned by the Estate Officer; the petitioners had been reendorsed as the 'unauthorized occupants' within the meaning of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter W.P.(C) Nos.3181/2015, 3486/2015,3487/2015, 3974/2015 &4140/2015 Page 2of15 r referred to as the 'said Act'). The petitioners had been directed forthwith to vacate the demised premises.

2 The averments in the writ petition disclose that the petitioner Mahesh Chand Sharma was in possession of 157.15 square yards of a property forming a part of khasra No. 112. Petitioner No. 2 Ahsan Ali was a subsequent purchaser of land measuring 125.97 square yards having purchased it from Mahesfr'ChanA Sfrafn^a. |*efitioneRNo. 3 Shafi Ahmad is /^' \... also a purchaser from Mdhesh QhariTd^jShapna to the|ext.erit, of 34.43 square // ic. -{v yards of land. Taufeeq Ali hadi:alsb|pfrfdl!iised anothef.;=piece of land from f! wmmmw ^ Mahesh Chand Sharma measurin^j^|)M|quare yards ofland. Petitioner No. I 1^1 tf)I. i

5 Samar Hasanf-had also purchasp^d^a-^lli^eje: of land from Mahesh Chand Sharma in the aforenotedlldiyFa^efeMasfattN'o^'^Pf3' measuring 20.14 square vVj "A-?''"? ^// yards. These purchas"es>.wefetbasedi;on=^f^istered-agreements to sell, Will -J li '-'j y a,j~>' etc.; they were not sale deeds.

3 Lead case has been treated as the case of Mahesh Chand Sharma i.e. W.P. (C) No.3181/2015. The case of Mahesh Chand Sharma is that he was the original owner of this aforenoted land. Petitioners No. 2 to 5 have derivedtheir interest from petitionerNo. 1. W.P.(C) NOS.3181/201S, 3486/2015, 3487/2015, 3974/2015 &4140/2015 Page 3of15 T

4 The case of petitioner No. 1 Mahesh Chand Sharma is that he is in possession of this property since the year 1972. He has been paying housetax and electricity charges for the aforenoted property of which he is in possession since 1972 over which a pucca structure had been built by him. This property falls in khasra No. 112 and not 113 which is the case set up by the respondent; the respondent is claiming his title over the land falling in khasra No. 113; the property'ofthe petitioner^ mllSv^in khasra No. 112 which I ft f'i i O />• ^ ^,-y\\ "'vv.. is distinct from khasrh'No. 1T[3] and sinCgxthe identity^.of the property is itself in dispute, the impu^ried ordferMlle''©dhm^Ction orcsthe petitioners is a ! ^ ^ I nullity. a W^A^mW n• g • fl y • I 5 Learned counsel for the petitSn*erJ|disStipport his submission that he is

6 Learned counseLfdf thefteMitioher l^ubmita-^Aat these documents clearly evidence that dsf%ay baSM|as_:tfhv4970's, p€tftipiier No. 1 was in possession ofthis prpperty. He j|^®iMf|||^'this propert^rOm the original cultivator namely one Chuttan. RelevMt would it be to note that it has come r • iiityiiuJi « % S s U up' iJ I Y^t-I H fj „ on record in thq\evidence record|^i|5efd|:|)||e Estate Officer|hat petitioner No. 1(examined as R^^^^ai%uE||a^^|nisi^pplj^y frj^^ Chuttan vide <A 'Vs. Jf documents of title but the sai4^dQCuments could not bemroduced before the Estate Officer as the same had been=iwashs0d^"^ay in the rain. This was admitted by RW-3 in his cross-examination; no FIR has been lodged before the police authorities that these documents had been washed away in the flood/rain.

7 This aforenoted statement of RW-3 has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondent to support his submission that the fKF.(C) Nos.3181/2015, 3486/2015, 3487/2015, 3974/2015 &4140/2015 Page 5of15 \o petitioner is neither the owner and nor in legal occupation of the aforenoted property; the submission of the petitioner that there is a dispute about the identity of the property is also an eye-wash as the documents filed by the petitioner himself reflect that the demised premises are forming a part of khasraNo. 113.

8 This Court also notes the admitted position that earlier the respondent had filed a suit for pernfahent^andlhhanddfore^ihfunction (Civil Suit No. ({ 493/1983) against tHb petitionerMMne^S^ been^^^^ithdrawn in the year /"cy v..% 1992 vide order date^^l[9].10.1992A^M7subM^ oftHe'-^resbondent on this // v\ count is that the respondent had smcetbeemgranted the status of a University i ^ riUi it r 11 ^ V' j! H.,r •viiij r and being apublic body, it wasjidi^sedlt^a^^roceedings under the said Act would be the appropriate^^empdysTprgtlrej such this suit €1] \y« ^ was accordingly withdt^^f' 9 The fact that the respondent Corporation has attained the status of Central University is not in dispute. Thus the submission of the respondent that the proceedings under the said Act were maintainable by the respondent against the petitioner is a submission which is factually correct.

10 The most vehement submission which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under the said Act would W.P.(C) Nos.3181/2015, 3486/2015, 3487/2015, 3974/2015 &4140/2015 Page 6of15 n not be applicable if there is a bonafide dispute regarding the title of a property and for this proposition, he has placed reliance upon AIR 1982 SC 1081 Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bandi Venkatarama and others. There is no doubt to this legal proposition. Legal proposition being that if a bonafide dispute regarding the title to any property is raised, the unilateral decision by the Government in its own favour that the property belongs to it cannot be acceded to; the sunfmarvjprocedure,,^derjSection 6ofthe said Act tij lid I if 4^ ^ A O w •its." //•in, •%,. in such an eventualitF'wouldmot be available. % 11 However the'^icrux of the/Mlsion^which has to«b[4] decided by this I'l I Court is whether there is a bonafide oi^pmd qua the title of the property or t:'i W I'i If. ifll f] ^ 11 I ipii!\i I not? This shall now be examined^ffipj^f^j^sUing paragraphs. §

12 The documehtsfelfeH^dpon %ThS^'etitiohbf"ateJnG^ documents oftitle. ""®'SSr-K3$E[5]:srS-"" A A ^ The only document woifht^revifil'Ts'itheil^^pL^^^^^ this is also not a document of title. It only evidences the cultivatory possession of the name of the person mentioned in column No. 3. The name of the aforenoted person is Chuttan. Column No. 3 records that Chuttan is the shareholder of Ramji Lai. The possessory rights in column No. 8 mention the name of Mahesh Chand Sharma. This document is of the year 1995. The other documents relied upon by the petitioner are only electricity bills and W.P.(C) Nos.3181/2015, 3486/2015,3487/2015, 3974/2015 &4140/2015 Page 7of15 payment ofhouse-tax. These are unilateral payments made by petitioner NO. 1. Relevant would it be to note that all these later documents refer to property No. 113/1, Gafur Nagar, New Delhi. In the course of evidence which had been adduced before the Estate Officer; petitioner No. l(RW-3) had deposed that he had constructed this house in the year 1972 and he was in possession since then; the land was originally owned by Chuttan. He had purchased this land from Chautfan|/i,de*certainlidGuments which documents had got destroyed inf%ejv,heavy rainppftthe year l'C78;%.H%Jiad not filed any / fvp, ""'/P \ complaint aboutpe^f^ltruction!^|^^^j|f|||aents. RWp admitted that he had not checked' the title ofChuMnliit^hf unaware whethe| Chuttan was

9 X fi T&ff f3% R !l lillllf..[1] the owner of this land or not; he turtheirraamitted that this property falls in

IX. ' ^r^:k7A A t\V IT u _____ I? 34!^^ ^ fl khasra No. 112 a's also Ramphal had never \4^x resided mthishouse>^;;^\^ 13 This evidence on recorS^tearly^estaMiiKes that the title of Chuttan itself was in dispute; petitioner No. 1 had never checked the title document of Chuttan; he also had no document in his hand to establish that he had purchased this land from Chuttan as was the case set up by him. Per contra, the respondent had produced the sale deed executed by one Ram Singh qua land measuring 6 bigha and 4 biswas in khasra No. 113. Khatoni No. 1 fV.P.(C) Nos.3181/2015,3486/2015,3487/2015, 3974/2015 &4140/2015 Page 8of15 u situated in village Jogabai, Tehsil and District Delhi as per jamabandi of the year 1943-44. This document is a registered document. It is on record. There is no dispute to this document. In fact no dispute has beenraisedupon this document. This document evidences the fact that Ram Singh had executed this sale deed in favour of Dr. Zakir Hussan. The date of execution of this document is 20.12.1948. It is also not in dispute that Dr. Zakir Hussain had donated this lahd^to'the-respondenMlamia Millia which in the year 1988 attained the'title of'a Centrahlfniversity.O., 1/1 T» A C,iL\^ u a * U •+ frxf 14 Record further' shows that.ftneMiejpondent had^filed a suit for I " '^MMw..I permanent and| mandatory injunGGoii IMainst the petitioner but had I III III I withdrawn it thWeafter on 19.1i0th9^i2'^^IJiis was for the re^ason that the j, j %. j //.[1] • j respondent had attamed^the.>tatus^sOE!Eentra;r1iniyersltyr,and' was authorized to evict the petitioner%nder &eJsSi'd»^eif^oce4<^gi'under the said Act ^ '303/l!r%?T.t±'sir thereafter ensued i.e. after the withdrawal-'df'lhe said proceedings. Notice under Section 5 ofthe said Act was issued by the Estate Officer ofthe Jamia Milliaon 25.11.1991. This notice had been issued to Ramphal, the father of petitioner No. 1. The case set up by the respondent was that this land was given by Jamia Millia to Ramphal for keeping his cattle as he used to supply milk to the respondent/Jamia Millia; this land was given to him on the IV.P.(C) Nos.3181/2015, 3486/2015, 3487/2015, 3974/2015&4140/2015 Page9of15 condition that whenever Jamia would need the.land, it would be vacated by Ramphal and handed over to Jamia. However, when Jamia asked Ramphal to vacate the premises in 1979, Ramphal changed his mind and encroached upon the land in question. Accordingly two suits had been filed by the respondent against Ramphal (father of petitioner No. 1). As noted supra, these suits were for permanent and mandatory injunction. However these suits were withdrawn on^legaf advice ^s th^fe'spondent had attained the status of a Central IJniVersify^in the yeMM988 and<as'/s,up%)roceedings under the saidActwereiinitiltted therdiibri5ryt& Vv \ Li

15 Relevant iwould it be to rifeteltMirin proceedings before the Estate iii'ir' i ^ i feH, f-. fvj fd. fll Uj, ' Officer, Ramphkl had appearedfk|ii|MisHd|^nce was that he had not raised 'V\ IfI Wirit? iVKw k any construction bn the^^'Pifeira^AMh^^attiC^haSJfeen raised by his son Mahesh Chand Sharin^and^tlie^^w^ who were also occupying the land. Accordih^ysfeshrnotiBe" Hated 30.11.1993 under the said Act issuedto the unauthroized occupants and 10otherpersons.

16 Ramphal, (father of petitioner No.l) had expired on 23.10.1998. Thereafter these proceedings were withdrawn and fresh notices under Section 4 ofthe said Act were issued topetitioners No. 1to[5]. • W.P.(Q Nos.3181/2015, 3486/2015, 3487/2015, 3974/2015&4140/2015 Page10of15