The Delhi High Court has held that if the fundamental premise on which public land is allotted to an entity ceases to exist, a perpetual lease with respect to this public land can be canceled by the Land & Development Officer, Government of India..The Judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru in a petition by Center of Applied Politics (petitioner) challenging the cancellation of a perpetual deed of lease deed dated July 2, 1977, executed in its favour with respect to a property at IP Estate, New Delhi..By two orders dated June 12, 2017, and June 23, 2017, the Deputy Land & Development Officer, Government of India (L&DO) canceled the perpetual lease and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the property to the concerned authorities..The lease was canceled on the ground that the petitioner had failed and neglected to construct a building on the land, as speculated in the lease agreement and to use the same for the purpose for which the land was allotted..The L&DO found that there was unauthorized construction on the land and there were complaints of attempts made to usurp the same by squatters/miscreants for carrying on the work of a political party..It was also submitted that show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner and a notice was also pasted on site but no response was received..Arguing that the orders were discriminatory and were, therefore, liable to the set-aside, the petitioner argued that the unauthorized construction raised at site did not warrant cancellation of the perpetual lease..The petitioner suggested that the breaches could be compounded and the unauthorized construction could be regularized upon payment of penalty. The petitioner also contended that carrying on work of a political party was the “practical side” of the petitioner’s objective of carrying research and training in politics and political processes..After perusing the facts at hand, the Court opined that even after four decades, the purpose for which the land was allotted remained “unfulfilled” and the land was being used for the purposes other than for which it was allotted..The Court also noted that the petitioner had failed to comply with its obligation under the Agreement for Lease by failing to “erect an office building and five single seated rooms for visiting scholars from India and abroad” at its own expense within a period of twenty-four calendar months from the date of handing over of possession of the land..The Court also enquired from the petitioner if there was “any rudimentary material to even remotely” show that the objectives of the petitioner were being pursued..Observing that the onus to establish that the petitioner was actively pursuing its objects rested with the petitioner, the Court remarked that the petitioner’s response that no one had raised such questions and that carrying on work of a political party was the practical side to its objective was “unamusing”..The Court further recorded that the unauthorized construction on the land was being used as an office for a political party..In view of the above, the Court opined that the decision of the L&DO canceling the lease did not warrant any interference..It further added,.“Public lands cannot be permitted to be usurped in the guise of ensuing academic and scholarly pursuits, as has been attempted in the present case. It is disconcerting, to say the least, to note that the L&DO has permitted public land, allotted for a specified purpose, to remain in possession of the petitioner without seeking an account of its usage.”.The petition was accordingly dismissed..The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate VP Singh with Advocates Vishal Singh and Jyoti Kataria Bajaj..The Respondent was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Ravi Prakash with advocate Farman Ali..Read the Order:
The Delhi High Court has held that if the fundamental premise on which public land is allotted to an entity ceases to exist, a perpetual lease with respect to this public land can be canceled by the Land & Development Officer, Government of India..The Judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru in a petition by Center of Applied Politics (petitioner) challenging the cancellation of a perpetual deed of lease deed dated July 2, 1977, executed in its favour with respect to a property at IP Estate, New Delhi..By two orders dated June 12, 2017, and June 23, 2017, the Deputy Land & Development Officer, Government of India (L&DO) canceled the perpetual lease and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the property to the concerned authorities..The lease was canceled on the ground that the petitioner had failed and neglected to construct a building on the land, as speculated in the lease agreement and to use the same for the purpose for which the land was allotted..The L&DO found that there was unauthorized construction on the land and there were complaints of attempts made to usurp the same by squatters/miscreants for carrying on the work of a political party..It was also submitted that show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner and a notice was also pasted on site but no response was received..Arguing that the orders were discriminatory and were, therefore, liable to the set-aside, the petitioner argued that the unauthorized construction raised at site did not warrant cancellation of the perpetual lease..The petitioner suggested that the breaches could be compounded and the unauthorized construction could be regularized upon payment of penalty. The petitioner also contended that carrying on work of a political party was the “practical side” of the petitioner’s objective of carrying research and training in politics and political processes..After perusing the facts at hand, the Court opined that even after four decades, the purpose for which the land was allotted remained “unfulfilled” and the land was being used for the purposes other than for which it was allotted..The Court also noted that the petitioner had failed to comply with its obligation under the Agreement for Lease by failing to “erect an office building and five single seated rooms for visiting scholars from India and abroad” at its own expense within a period of twenty-four calendar months from the date of handing over of possession of the land..The Court also enquired from the petitioner if there was “any rudimentary material to even remotely” show that the objectives of the petitioner were being pursued..Observing that the onus to establish that the petitioner was actively pursuing its objects rested with the petitioner, the Court remarked that the petitioner’s response that no one had raised such questions and that carrying on work of a political party was the practical side to its objective was “unamusing”..The Court further recorded that the unauthorized construction on the land was being used as an office for a political party..In view of the above, the Court opined that the decision of the L&DO canceling the lease did not warrant any interference..It further added,.“Public lands cannot be permitted to be usurped in the guise of ensuing academic and scholarly pursuits, as has been attempted in the present case. It is disconcerting, to say the least, to note that the L&DO has permitted public land, allotted for a specified purpose, to remain in possession of the petitioner without seeking an account of its usage.”.The petition was accordingly dismissed..The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate VP Singh with Advocates Vishal Singh and Jyoti Kataria Bajaj..The Respondent was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Ravi Prakash with advocate Farman Ali..Read the Order: