The Delhi High Court directed enforcement of possession in favor of a senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, emphasizing the duty of authorities to promptly execute eviction orders and mandating SOPs for SDMs.
Full Text
Translation output
2023/DHC/001523
W.P.(C) 12613/2022 HIGH COURT OF DELHI Date of Decision: 1st March, 2023
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC (Civil), GNCTD. Mr. Karan Kumar & Mr. Godson George, Advocates for R-4 (M- 9250191196).
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The petition was filed by the Petitioner- Chatur Sain seeking issuance of a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 & 3, to comply with order dated 24th September, 2018 passed by the Respondent No.2- District Magistrate, District West, 3 - Shivaji Place, Raja Garden, New Delhi-110027 in Case no. 34 of 2017/1731 titled ‘Shri Chatur Sain v. Smt. Jayanti Khanagwal’ under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007. In the said order, the Respondent No.2 had directed that the possession of property bearing No. A-1/232, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi- 110063 (hereinafter ‘subject property) was to be handed over to the Petitioner.
3. Vide order dated 18th October, 2022, passed in WP(C)No.14709/2022 titled “Jayanti Khanagwal v. Chatur Sain & Ors.”, an undertaking was given by the Respondent No. 4 in the present case, i.e., Mrs. Jayanti Khanagwal that she would vacate the subject property within three weeks from the date of the order. The relevant observation of the said order is set out below:
“3. The Court also notes that the senior citizen, the first respondent here, had independently petitioned this Court by way of W.P.(C) 12613/2022 airing a grievance that despite the order of 24 September 2018, the respondents had not enforced the same. Taking cognisance of the aforesaid complaint, the Court on 01 September 2022 had proceeded to frame peremptory directions for the aforesaid order being duly executed. On 11 October 2022, when the aforesaid writ petition was taken up for review, the Court was informed that although the authorities did make an attempt to execute the order of 24 September 2018, the same could not be completed on account of resistance put up by the petitioner here. It is only thereafter that the petitioner appears to have chosen to mount the instant challenge. 4. Notwithstanding the above and bearing in mind the fact that the petitioner is staying alone in the premises in question along with an eleven year old child, the Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would warrant reasonable time being accorded to her to vacate the premises in question and to move to another accommodation which is stated to have been purchased and identified by the husband, the respondent No.3 here. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the said respondent has placed for the perusal of the Court a copy of an Agreement to Sell dated 09 March 2021 in respect of a property situate in Build-up upper ground floor in property bearing Nos.62 and 63, Khasra No.9/10, Shiv Vihar Block-B, Nilothi Extn. New Delhi- 110041 and submits that he shall accompany and facilitate the petitioner moving into the aforesaid premises which
are owned by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if respondent No.3 were to make appropriate arrangements for her stay in the identified premises, she would have no objection to vacate the premises in question and give up the challenge to the impugned orders.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the Court closes the instant proceedings with the direction that the petitioner shall duly vacate the premises in question not later than within three weeks from today. The third respondent shall duly facilitate the movement and shifting of the petitioner to the premises which are owned by him and make appropriate arrangements for the residence of the petitioner and her child. Respondent No.3 shall also provide all property related papers to the petitioner to enable her to verify the same and satisfy herself with regard to the interest which is stated to be vested and existing in favour of respondent No.3.”
4. On 20th December, 2022, ld. Counsel appearing for the GNCTD as also the Tehsildar submitted that the order would be enforced and steps for eviction would be taken. On the said date, the Court had also directed that the enforcement be given effect to and the report be filed at least two weeks before the next date of hearing.
5. However, on the last date of hearing, i.e., 7th February, 2023, Mr. Vashisht, ld. Counsel appearing for the GNCTD and SDM had handed over a report dated 7th February, 2023 stating that the subject property was locked and thus the eviction could not be carried out. The said report dated 7th February, 2023 is extracted as under:
“1. That the matter regarding eviction/vacating of House No. A- 1/232,Paschim Vihar, New Delhi from Smt. Jayanti Khanagwal & her husband Sh. Dushyant
Khangwal was taken up on 05-01-2023 and a team consisting of Revenue field staff of sub-Division, Punjabi Bagh under the supervision of undersigned alongwith police force visited the site for implementation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 20-12-2022 and it was found that the House No. A-1/232,Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was found locked thus the eviction process could not be implemented. The photocopy of the general diary of P.S. Paschim Vihar dated 05-01-2023 alongwith the photograph of the team’s presence before the aforesaid house is annexed as Annexure-1 for kind consideration of the Hon’ble High Court.
2. That the inspection of the house was also carried out on several time by the Revenue field staff and the house was found locked and finally a programme was also fixed for eviction of the aforesaid house for 27-01-2023 but the aforesaid house was found locked thus the drive could not be held.”
6. In light of the above proceedings, vide order dated 7th February, 2023, this Court issued certain directions. The relevant extract of the said order is extracted as under:
“8. It is clear that there is complete violation of the
undertaking given to the Court and the SDM is also not
9,068 characters total
taking proper steps to give effect to the orders passed
by this Court. The order dated 18th October, 2022
brings no ambiguity insofar as the undertaking to
vacate, which has been given by the Respondent No. 4.
9. The Petitioner is a 83 years old senior citizen who is
still being deprived of his property despite orders
having been passed by the Court in his favour. Under
such circumstances, it is directed as under:-
i) Let bailable warrants be issued to Respondent No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to be executed through the SHO PS- Paschim Vihar East.
ii) The concerned SDM Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma shall take such coercive measures as may be required to ensure the implementation of the order dated 18th October, 2022 and that the possession of the property bearing No.A-1/232, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi be handed over to the Petitioner. iii) The SDM shall request for any police deployment, if required, from the concerned SHO, which shall be provided. iv) The SDM shall intimate Respondent No. 4 on her mobile no. 9310233929 of the date when the breaking open of locks or any other steps would be taken by the concerned SDM. Even if the Respondent No. 4 is not present, the SDM would proceed with taking action.
10. List for reporting compliance on 1st March, 2023 on top of board.”
7. Today, Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ld. ASC appearing for the GNCTD submits that, in compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 7th February, 2023, the possession of the property bearing No. A-1/232, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 has been handed over to the Petitioner.
8. The status report on behalf of the PS Paschim Vihar has been placed before this Court by SI Baljeet Singh. It is recorded that the bailable warrants were also executed against Respondent No. 4. The Respondent NO. 4 is present in Court.
9. Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 submits that her husband-Mr. Dushyant Khanagwal, who is the Respondent No. 5, was obliged to provide the required support and facilitate the movement of his wife.
10. As per ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 4, Respondent No. 5 has provided alternate accommodation on 25th February 2023, after which the possession of the subject premises, has been handed over to the Petitioner.
11. In view of the above, the bailable warrants issued against Respondent No. 4 are discharged.
12. It is repeatedly noticed by this Court that various orders for enforcement of possession and recovery which are to be given effect to by the SDM are not dealt with expeditiously and with alacrity. In respect of the SDM’s power under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and other statutes there is an emergent need for sensitization of the SDM’s in order to give effect to orders passed by various Courts. The GNCTD ought to issue SOPs as guidelines for all the SDMs to ensure implementation of orders passed by the Court and also the manner in which orders of eviction and recovery that may be passed are given effect to.
13. Let a SOP be prepared and be circulated to all the SDMs within three months. If any extension of time is needed, the GNCTD may approach the Court.
14. With these above terms, the present petition along with all pending applications, if any, is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MARCH 1, 2023 mr/am
Upgrade to Pro
This feature is available on the Pro plan. Upgrade to unlock full AI summaries, PDF downloads, and more.