Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: (1)
13 CS DJ 781/24
Ali Muthu Vs. Parvati
01.10.2026
Present : None for plaintiff.
Sh. Vinay Rathi, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 4/DUSIB through
VC.
1. Vide order dated 03.09.2025, this Court, inter alia, directed the Chief
Executive Officer, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB),
to file an affidavit explaining:
(i) whether the ownership of the suit property vests with DUSIB;
(ii) who, according to DUSIB, is in possession of the suit property;
(iii) whether DUSIB has instituted any civil suit for recovery of
possession of the suit property; and
(iv) whether, according to DUSIB, there has been any violation of the
terms of allotment.
2. In compliance thereof, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
CEO, DUSIB.
3. I have considered the affidavit and the documents annexed thereto.
4. As regards the question of ownership, the affidavit does not give a
categorical answer to the query raised by this Court. It merely states
that the suit property is under the “jurisdiction/management & control”
-- 1 of 7 --
(2)
of DUSIB, referring to an office order dated 01.09.1992 and the
notification dated 01.07.2010. The office order relied upon by DUSIB
itself records the transfer of assets and liabilities of the Slum & JJ
Wing of DDA, including lands in JJR colonies, to the Slum & JJ
Department of MCD. The subsequent notification dated 01.07.2010
relied upon by DUSIB is the notification bringing the DUSIB Act,
2010 into force.
5. Thus, the expression “management & control” used in the affidavit
cannot, by itself, be treated as a categorical assertion or proof of
title/ownership. DUSIB shall, therefore, place on record the relevant
records concerning the allotment of JJR Plot No. E-434, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, including the name of the original allottee, the
allotment/licence document, the nature of the rights created thereunder,
and the present status thereof. The CEO of DUSIB shall file an
additional affidavit specifically stating, on the basis of its records,
whether DUSIB asserts ownership/title over the land in question and, if
so, the document(s) on the basis of which such title is asserted. This
direction is necessitated because neither the plaintiff nor DUSIB has
filed any document of original allotment of the suit property.
-- 2 of 7 --
(3)
6. As regards possession, the survey report dated 12.02.2026 records the
presence of Smt. Parvati, Smt. Laxmi, Sh. Ali Muthu, and Sh. Laxman
at different floors of the property. DUSIB has accordingly identified
the persons whom it presently treats as occupants of the property.
7. DUSIB has further stated that no civil suit has been instituted by it for
recovery of possession. It has, however, stated that notices under the
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 were issued to the
occupants alleging violation of the terms and conditions of the
allotment/licence.
8. At this stage, this Court is not called upon to express any opinion on
the correctness of the allegations regarding the violation of terms of
allotment/licence. Those matters, insofar as they fall within the
statutory jurisdiction of DUSIB, are required to be dealt with by the
competent authority in accordance with law. However, the manner in
which DUSIB has dealt with its own statutory proceedings warrants
attention. The first notice placed on record is dated 13.02.2026, calling
upon the occupants to explain the alleged violations and to appear with
relevant documents. This was followed by a reminder dated
27.04.2026, which recorded that only one of the five persons had
appeared and no documents had been furnished. Instead of proceeding
-- 3 of 7 --
(4)
thereafter to consider the material available on record and passing an
appropriate order under the Act, DUSIB issued yet another
communication dated 12.06.2026, again calling upon the occupants to
furnish documents and describing this opportunity as “last and final”.
The said period has also lapsed without any decision being taken.
9. The statutory scheme contained in Sections 41 and 42 of the DUSIB
Act, 2010, even where attracted, does not contemplate an indefinite
succession of show-cause notices. Section 41 provides for a notice
calling upon the person concerned to show cause and produce
evidence. Section 42 specifically contemplates consideration of the
cause shown, the evidence produced, and the personal hearing
afforded, and thereafter empowers the Board to pass a reasoned order.
10.The fundamental purpose of a show-cause notice is to afford a fair
opportunity of hearing to the affected party. Once such opportunity has
been duly afforded, the statutory authority is duty-bound to apply its
mind to the material before it and take a decision in accordance with
law. A show-cause notice cannot be an end in itself, nor can the
issuance of repetitive notices and reminders substitute the adjudicatory
exercise mandated by the statute.
-- 4 of 7 --
(5)
11.The record in the present case indicates that DUSIB itself asserts that
the occupants failed to furnish the requisite documents despite multiple
opportunities. In such circumstances, the course open to the competent
authority was to proceed on the basis of the material available on
record and pass an appropriate statutory order. The repeated issuance
of show-cause notices on the same subject matter, without taking them
to a logical conclusion, serves no statutory purpose.
12.This Court is constrained to observe that the sequence of notices dated
13.02.2026, 27.04.2026, and 12.06.2026 gives the impression that,
instead of finalizing the proceedings, DUSIB has continuously
deferred taking a statutory decision. Such inaction is difficult to
reconcile with the obligation of a public authority to discharge its
statutory duties within a reasonable frame of time.
13.Having invoked the statutory machinery under Section 41, DUSIB
cannot indefinitely postpone the subsequent steps mandated by law.
Public authorities hold public property in trust for the benefit of the
public and are expected to bring statutory proceedings to a reasoned
conclusion rather than allowing them to remain perpetually pending.
14.Public statutory authorities like DUSIB are trustees of State land and
have a solemn duty to protect public property from unauthorized
-- 5 of 7 --
(6)
commercial exploitation or illegal encroachment. In the present case,
despite asserting in its written statement that the terms of the licence
were breached, DUSIB initiated statutory process only after this Court
specifically invited the attention of DUSIB to the brazen breach of
terms of license. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed
that public officers are custodians of public resources and must act
diligently to safeguard state property, and that persistent dereliction of
duty warrants administrative scrutiny.
15.It is, therefore, directed that a copy of this order be forwarded to the
Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to look
into the inaction on the part of the concerned officials of DUSIB, and
for taking appropriate departmental/disciplinary action against officers
found negligent in safeguarding public land and enforcing statutory
terms of allotment.
16.It is further directed that the CEO, DUSIB shall place the matter
regarding the alleged violations before the Board so that an appropriate
decision is taken in accordance with law. Needless to state, the policy
and practice of DUSIB in enforcing allotment conditions must remain
uniform, fair, and non-discriminatory across similarly placed
properties. Defendant No. 4/DUSIB shall place on record a copy of the
-- 6 of 7 --
(7)
decision taken by the Board in respect of this matter before the next
date of hearing, to enable this Court to proceed with the adjudication of
the plaintiff’s prayer for declaration of ownership and recovery of
possession.
17.It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the
procedural delay and statutory compliance by DUSIB, and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the civil rights
of the parties, the validity of the allotment, or the entitlement/eviction
of any occupant.
Renotify on 30.11.2026.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
District Judge-III
North-West District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
01.10.2026
-- 7 of 7 --