w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Jeevan Kumar v/s Estate Officer, Directorate of Estates

    W.P.(C). No. 5247 of 2018 & CM. No. 20366 of 2018 (for stay)

    Decided On, 29 August 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi


    For the Petitioner: Sunil Kumar, Bijay Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent: Rajesh Kumar, Harvesh Kumar, Assistant Director, Tilak Raj, ASO of DOE.

Judgment Text

1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 1st May, 2018 in CIS-PPA-4-2017 (CNR-DLST 01-002396-2017) of the Court of the District Judge (South) acting as the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act)] of dismissal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order [dated 14th March, 2017 of the respondent Estate Officer] in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Act, of eviction of the petitioner from Quarter No.13, Block-72, Sector-1, M.B. Road (Type C), New Delhi, allotted to the petitioner owing to his employment in Survey of India and on a finding of the petitioner, instead of residing therein with his family, having sublet the same.

2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued and vide order dated 16th May, 2018, the respondent restrained from taking coercive action.

3. The counsel for the petitioner was heard on 21st August, 2018. During the hearing, he was unable to answer the factual questions put to him and was asked to call the petitioner who was earlier not present in the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the Court and was heard and the counsel for the respondent also partly heard. While adjourning the matter to 23rd August, 2018, the petitioner was given yet another opportunity to bring to this Court all the records which he may want to rely upon to show residence of himself and his family in the said quarter as well as the persons who were found in the quarter at the time of inspection along with documents to show their residence and relationship with petitioner, for determining whether the petitioner, in this petition also, is indulging in falsehood and whether a direction for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner needs to be issued.

4. Today, the petitioner, his wife Mrs. Daisy, daughter Wimmy Kaul and Mrs. Meenu, who was found in the quarter at the time of inspection, as identified by the counsel for the petitioner, are present.

5. I have made verbal enquires from Mrs. Meenu. Mrs. Meenu has not brought some of the documents which the petitioner, on 21st August, 2018 was directed that she should carry.

6. At this stage, the counsel for the respondent has drawn attention to page 21 of the paper book, being a part of the impugned order, to show that what is being stated by Mrs. Meenu today is contrary to what was stated by the petitioner in the proceedings leading to the filing of this petition.

7. It appears that the petitioner continues to indulge in falsehood, to retain the quarter which was allotted to him by virtue of his employment and which allotment stands cancelled as far back as on 20th March, 2013.

8. On enquiry, it is stated that the petitioner is working as Draftsman with the Survey of India and is posted at Delhi.

9. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not want to pursue this petition and withdraws the same and is willing to vacate the quarter aforesaid allotted to him undertaking to this Court is also offered to hand over vacant, peaceful physical possession of the said quarter on or before 15th September, 2018.

10. I have cautioned the petitioner through counsel that the aforesaid would not absolve the petitioner of his liability for damages under Section 7 of the PP Act and of the disciplinary action which may be initiated against him.

11. Mr. Harvesh Kumar, Assistant Director, Directorate of Estates accompanying the counsel for the respondent states that a recommendation for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner has already been made.

12. All that can be observed is that the conduct of the petitioner has been found to be deplorable and reprehensible and the petitioner has not shown the conduct as is expected from a government employee.

13. The petitioner undertakes to this Court to hand over vacant, peaceful physical possession of the quarter aforesaid to the respondent on or before 15th September, 2018 and to clear all electricity, water and other dues with respect to the aforesaid quarter till the date of his vacation, latest by 30th September, 2018.

14. The aforesaid undertaking of the petitioner is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be bound thereby and cautioned of consequences of breach of undertaking given to the Court.


Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

5. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 16. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner to, within two months hereof, consider initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, for actions/conduct aforesaid of the petitioner. 17. It is further made clear that the withdrawal of this petition shall not come in way of liability of petitioner for damages for unauthorised use and occupation of quarter aforesaid for last over five years. 18. No costs.