Full Text
%09.08.2018
Present: CouMsel for the petitioner(s)
Mr Avijit Mani Tripathi, Mr Shaurya Sahay and Mr Kumar
Abhishelc, Advocates.
Counselfor the respondent(s)
Mr Rajiv Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Dhanesh
Relan, Standing Cousnel for the DDA with Ms Komal Soroul and Ms Kajri Gupta,Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 7765/2016 with CM 32057/2016, 42669/2017, WP(C)7766/2016 with CM 32060/2016, WP(C)7767/2016 with CM 32065/2016, 38163/2017, WPfCl 7778/2016 with
CM -32133/2016. 32135/2016, WP(C)7781/2016 with CM
32142/2016, 32144/2016, WP(C) 7788/2016 with CM
32190/2016, WP(C)7790/2016 with CM 32199/2016, 38160/2017, WP(C17791/2016 with CM 32202/2016, 38161/2017, WP(C) 8306/2016 with CM 34422/2016, 34425/2016, 42666/2017, WP(C) 2485/2017 with CM.
No.10716/2017, 37942/2017, WP(0 2523/2017 with CM
No.10887/2017, WP(C)2574/2017 with CM No.11116/2017, ■ 37945/2017, WP(C)'2577/2017 with CM No.11150/2017, 37944/2017, WP(C) 2609/2017 with CM No.l1300/2017, 37950/2017, WP(C) 3379/2017 with CM No.14764/2017, WP(C1 3389/2017with CM No.14816/2017, WP(C)
3575/2017 with CM No.15641/2017
JUDGMENT
1. The counsels for the petitioners state:
(i) these petitions, save W.Ps (C) No.2523/2017, 2574/2017,
2609/2017 & 3575/2017, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution ofIndia were preferred impugning the orders ofthe Page I of[5] 2018:DHC:9114 District Judge,acting as the Appellate Officer under Section 9ofthe PublicPremises (Eviction ofUnauthorized Occupants)Act,1971,of dismissal ofappeals preferred by each ofthe petitioner/s against the order of the Estate Officer of the respondent Delhi Development Authority(DDA)against each ofthe petitioner/s,ofeviction ofeach ofthe petitioner/s; W.Ps(C)No.2523/2017,2574/2017,2609/2017& 3575/2017 have been preferred directly against order of the Estate Officer, without availing the appellate remedy but were entertained for the reason ofparity;
(ii) againstthe orders ofdismissal ofpetitions ofothers identically placed as the petitioners in these petitions, appeals were preferred to the Division Bench of this Court which were also dismissed and thereaftei Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) were preferred to the Supreme Court;
(iii) the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLPs vide order dated
20.03,2018 in SLP(C) no.5253/2018 titled S/tiv Shankar & Others versus Delhi Development Authority & Another but has, subject to the petitioners therein filing an affidavit of undeitaking to, on or before December, 2019, vacate and hand over peaceful vacant possession of the property in their respective possession and with respect to which orders ofeviction have been passed,granted time to those petitioners to vacate.the premises by then;
(iv) these petitioners do not want to pursue these petitions and withdraw these petitions and will remain bound by the eviction orders subject matter of each of the petitions, but seek time to vacate as granted by the Supreme Court; Page2of[5]
(v) that each of the petitioner/s are willing to file affidavits of ■ undertalcings in this regard/undertaking to, on or before 3P' December, 2019 vacate and hand over vacant peaceful" physical possession of the entire premises in their possession/occupation and/or with respect to which eviction order has been passed, to the respondent DDA and not to deal with the said premises in any other manner whatsoever and not to alienate, encumber or part with possession thereofto anyone else; and,
(vi) thatthisBench also,vide order dated 24^*^ July,2018in W.P.(C)
2. The senior counsel for the respondentDDA states:
(i) thatthe grant ofthe time by the Supreme Court was only to the petitioners who had approached the Supreme Court;
(ii) owing to such time being granted,the project ofthe respondent
DDA is getting delayed and is suffering and which project itself is time bound in terms ofdirection ofthe National-Green Tribunal;
(iii) it will have to be verified whether each of the petitioner/s is similarly situated as the petitioners before the Supreme Court, to whom the Supreme Court granted time;and,
(iv) the petitioners before the Supreme Court were members either of Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multi-Purpose Society or Jheel Khuranja Milk Producers Co-operative Society.
3. The counsels for the petitioners states that each ofthe petitioners are member ofeither ofthe two societies and premises ofnone ofthe petitioners are outside the premises ofeither ofthe two societies. He,however states Page3of[5] / that each of the petitioners, in the affidavit of undertaking, which will be filed,will furnish particulars in this regard.
4. I have enquired from the senior counsel for the respondent DDA that if the project of the respondent DDA is already held up owing to time having been granted to petitioners before the Supreme Court, whether it is the case ofthe respondent DDA that the location ofthe premises ofthese petitioners is such that any further delay would be caused.^ It is felt that if owing to any one ofthe persons to whom time has already been granted,the project is already held up, it will not make any difference ifthe petitioners herein are also granted time.
5. The senior counsel for the respondent DDA states that he. is immediately unable to state whether the location ofthe premises of any of the petitioners is such that grant oftime to that petitioner would resultin any additional delay in the project.
6. The senior counsel for the respondent DDA however states that the respondent DDA has already filed an application in the Supreme Court in this regard and pleadings wherein are being completed.
7. The apprehension of delay expressed by the senior counsel for the DDA can be taken care of by providing, that if on the application filed by the DDA before the Supreme Court,the Supreme Court makes any order for sooner vacation of the premises, the said order would be binding on these petitioners also.
8. The counsel for the petitioners is agreeable thereto.
9. ■ Accordingly,these petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
10. However,subject to the petitioners, within four weeks oftoday,filing Page4of[5] affidavit in this Court, with advance copy to counseh for DDA, giving particulars of membership of either of the two societies aforesaid and undertaking to this Courtto,till December,2019 hand over vacant peaceful physical possession of premises in their respective possession to the respondentDDA and to not deal with the said premises in any other manner whatsoever and not to alienate, encumber or part with possession thereofto anyone else, the orders of eviction from which these petitions arise be not executed till December,2019. On such affidavits being filed,the undertaking contained therein shall stand accepted and the petitioners will be bound therewith. Ifany ofthe petitioner/s does not file affidavit or the affidavit is notin terms of above, the respondent DDA shall be entitled to immediately enforce the order ofeviction againstsuch petitioner/s.
11. The petitions are disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW,J. AUGUST 09,2018 / 'Id'.. Page5of[5]