JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA,J - (1.) THE Bangalow No. 65, The Mall, Jalandhar cantonment, which is built on land measuring 2.95 acres is the bone of contention. On November 26, 1970 the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, had accorded sanction for the resumption of the property. On March 10, 1971 the occupants were directed to vacate the property and deliver the possession of the premises. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner's predecessor-in- interest had approached the Delhi High Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 388 of 1971. This writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by its judgment dated March 5, 1991. Aggrieved by the order, Mr. Shital Prasad Jain filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10318 of 1991 in Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the special leave was granted and registered as a civil appeal. The appeal was posted for hearing along with Civil Appeal No. 3221 of 1991 on February 6, 2001. The appeal was withdrawn. The appeal having been dismissed, the respondents issued a notice dated February 22, 2001 to the petitioner calling upon the occupants of the property to vacate it. Aggrieved by the notice given by the Defence Estate Officer, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He claims to be the exclusive owner in possession of the property. It is alleged that "the respondents have no right or interest in any part thereof". The "land underneath the Bungalow in question had never been given by the Government of India by way of Grant to anybody ... and the property is held by the different owners as exclusive owners thereof....". The respondents cannot forcibly dispossess the petitioner. They have to resort to the proceedings under the Public Premises Act. On this basis the petitioner prays that the notice dated February 22, 2001, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition, be quashed and that the respondents be restrained from taking forcible possession of the property.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. N.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property. The appeal was withdrawn form the Supreme Court with the object of initiating fresh proceedings to establish title and that the action of the respondents in proceeding to evict without notice is wholly arbitrary and illegal. The questions that arise for consideration are :- 1. Is the petitioner the absolute owner of the property ? 2. Is the action of the respondents in proceeding to evict the petitioner illegal and invalid ? Regarding 1 : The factum of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest having approached the Delhi High Court and thereafter the Supreme Court has been mentioned in the writ petition. However, the copies of the pleadings and the judgment have not been produced. We think these were relevant. At our asking, the counsel has shown to us a copy of the Special Leave Petition No. 10318 of 1991. On this paper book, as handed over by the counsel, the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court as also a copy of the written statement filed by Mr. R.P. Sehgal, Military Estate Officer, Jalandhar Circle, Jalandhar Cantonment, in reply to the writ petition are there. Still further, the rejoinder which had been filed by the present petitioner himself is also there.
(3.) A perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents in the Delhi High Court shows that a specific preliminary objection had been raised in the following words :- "The petitioner has suppressed material facts. He has not stated in the writ petition that his father, from whom the petitioner has inherited the property had admitted Government's proprietary rights in the land and subscribed to the conditions of the grant on which the site is held. True copy of the admission so made is annexed as Annexure R-1." ;