A significant legal case involving Okhla Industrial Area Tempo Transport Union and M/s J.K.V.B Properties Pvt. Ltd has seen a crucial judgment by Delhi High Court. The court has set aside the Impugned Notice dated 31.12.2020 and issued directions to restore possession within two weeks. Stay tuned for more updates on this landmark decision.
Facts
- The Petitioner, Okhla Industrial Area Tempo Transport Union, challenged the Notice dated 31.12.2020 issued by DSIIDC to vacate the premises.
- On 18.03.2004, M/s J.K.V.B Properties Pvt. Ltd became the owner of Shed No 1 and carried out unauthorized construction behind it, the space allotted to the Petitioner.
- The Petitioner was allotted the plot behind Shed No 1 on 30.06.1983 for parking the union member’s vehicles.
- A fresh permission was granted on 05.01.1999 to the Petitioner.
- The Petitioner claims that the Notice dated 31.12.2020 violates relevant acts and protections and filed a writ petition.
- Multiple suits and notices have been exchanged between the parties regarding the occupation of the premises in question.
- The Commissioner of Industries admits the allocation of premises to the Petitioner in 1983.
- The Petitioner has not taken possession of the alternate site allotted to them despite repeated reminders.
- Pending suits, a Notice in 2010 stated unauthorized occupation by the Petitioner and plans for a show cause notice for removal.
- The fate of the show cause notice dated 16.06.2010 remains unknown to the court.
Issue
- Whether the Petitioner was wrongly evicted from the premises in question
- Determination of whether due process of law was followed in the eviction process
Analysis
- Petitioner was given possession of the premises on 30.06.1983 by the Commissioner of Industries.
- Dispute regarding extension granted to the Petitioner by Respondent No.1.
- Court did not make observations on the merits of the case.
- Petitioner is not an unauthorized occupant; action can be taken under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act.
- Impugned Notice does not give license to evict the Petitioner without due process of law.
- Petitioner was lawfully permitted entry by the Commissioner of Industries and was in lawful possession.
- Eviction of the Petitioner cannot be permitted without following the due process of law.
- Question regarding M/s J.K.V.B Properties over the premises is not addressed by the Court.
- Relevant provisions of the Public Premises Act must be followed for any eviction.
- Petitioner could not have been dispossessed without following the procedure under the Act.
- Whether the Petitioner is an unauthorized occupant or not must be decided in a Court of competent jurisdiction after leading evidence.
- The estate officer is required to issue a notice if he is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized occupation.
- The notice should specify a date by which the premises should be vacated.
- If the person refuses to comply with the notice, the estate officer or authorized officer can evict them using necessary force.
- In case of compelling reasons, an additional fifteen days may be granted to vacate the premises.
- Any delay in issuing the notice does not invalidate the proceedings under the Act.
- The notice should be served by affixing it on the public premises’ outer door or any other conspicuous part.
Decision
- The Impugned Notice dated 31.12.2020 has been set aside by the judgment.
- The writ petition has been allowed.
- Directions have been given to restore possession of the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of the judgment.
- The authorities are instructed to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 for the eviction of the Petitioner.
Case Title: OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA TEMPO TRANSPORT UNION (REGD.) THROUGH ITS GEN. SECRETARY Vs. DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD & ANR. (2024:DHC:3968)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-919/2021
