Lt. Colonel Vineet Mehta vs The Estate Officer & Ors. on 11 May, 2018

1. This Letters Patent appeal challenges the order dated
08.02.2018 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) 3573/2017. The
appellant had in the writ petition assailed the judgment dated
29.03.2017 passed by the ld. ADJ-01 (South-West) on an appeal
preferred under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereafter ‘the Act’) against the
eviction order (dated 06.10.2012) by the Estate Officer under Sub-
Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act in respect of the premises no.4,
Tigris Road, Delhi Cantt (hereafter ‘the subject premises’).

2. The relevant facts are that the appellant, an Army Officer, was
allotted the subject premises a regular married accommodation for

LPA 242/2018 Page 1 of 7
residential purposes by letter dated 30.04.2008. On 19.04.2011, he
was posted out to field area Mtn. Div. Ord. Unit, Tenga Valley,
Arunachal Pradesh. At that time the appellant got himself registered
for allotment of Field Area Family Accommodation (hereafter
‘FAFA’) w.e.f. 22.07.2011. During the period of his posting with 5
Mtn. Div. Ord. Unit, he met with an accident in April, 2012 and it
appears on that account, he was given temporary attachment with HQ.,
Delhi area. In July, 2012 the appellant was transferred to Kanpur, a
peace area and was to join there by 03.09.2012. On 01.09.2012, he
was however given permanent posting to 57 Mtn. Div. Ord. Unit C/o
99 APO. He states that resultantly he was entitled to FAFA. Before his
such joining either in the field area posting at Kanpur or 57 Mtn. Div.
Ord. Unit, J&K/Assam, the allotment of the subject premises in his
favour was cancelled w.e.f. 06.07.2012, on the premise that the rules
did not permit retention of regular married accommodation after
allotment of FAFA which, according to the respondents, was made
earlier. The order of cancellation led to issuance of the notice under
Section 4(b)(ii) of the Act. The notice was resisted by the appellant,
who disputed the receipt of the communication allotting FAFA to him
besides, relying on his medical issue on account of accident he
suffered in April, 2012. Not satisfied with the reply, proceedings were
initiated by the Estate Officer under Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of
the Act which culminated into an eviction order on 06.10.2012.
Against that order, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 9
of the Act, which was dismissed on 29.03.2017. The appellant was
evicted from the subject premises on 07.04.2017. The order of the

LPA 242/2018 Page 2 of 7
District Judge was thereafter challenged by way of the writ petition
out of which the present appeal arises. The appellant has challenged
the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(C) 3573/2017 as well as the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the
Estate Officer under Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*