UNION OF INDIA vs EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. AND ORS.

$~56 & 57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18th December, 2023
+ CS(OS) 2480/1987, I.As. 9332/1987, 106/1988, 1252/1988, 2161/1988, 20139/2014

UNION OF INDIA ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swaroop Shukla, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Sawan Kumar, Adv and Mr. Neeraj Bakshi, Deputy L&DO Officer in person. (M. 9582807584)
Ms. Meera Bhatia, Adv.
versus
EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. AND ORS. ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. Amit Agarwal, Mr. Himanshu Kadiyan, Advs. (M. 9389826013)
57 AND
+ CS(OS) 52/1988
EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. Amit Agarwal, Mr. Himanshu Kadiyan, Advs. (M. 9389826013)
versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) ….. Defendant
Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swaroop Shukla, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Sawan Kumar, Adv and Mr. Neeraj Bakshi, Deputy L&DO Officer in person.
Ms. Meera Bhatia, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. CS(OS) 2480/1987 has been filed by the Land and Development Office, Union of India seeking recovery of possession and re-entry qua Plot No. 9-10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘subject property’), from Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. (ENPL) consequent to termination of the lease deed dated 17th March, 1958.
3. CS(OS) 52/1988 has been filed by ENPL challenging the two impugned notices dated 2nd November, 1987 issued by the Land and Development Office (L&DO). The said notices terminated the lease dated 17th March, 1958 and called upon the tenants of the subject property to pay the rent and other dues with effect, from 29th September 1987 to the L&DO.
4. It is submitted by ENPL that in 1949, it was allotted the subject property for use as a newspaper press on the ground floor with residential flats on the top-most floor for staff. However, it was restrained from constructing on a substantial part of the property until the underground sewer pipeline was realigned. Thereafter, vide lease dated 17th March, 1958 it was agreed that the area west of the sever pipeline admeasuring 2704 sq.yds shall be maintained as green. The premium charged was Rs.1.25 lakhs per acre for the buildable portion and Rs.36,000 for the portion to be left vacant. A supplemental lease dated 17th November, 1964 was also entered into regarding the permanent change of user for commercial use at additional premium.
5. The case of ENPL is that during the period from 1977, it sought permission to construct additional building on the green plot and to change of use to commercial. Union of India permitted it to shift the sewer pipeline outside the plot at the company’s cost and to construct the additional building. The plan was also sanctioned by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the construction was nearly completed by March 1980.
6. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 1st March, 1980 was issued by the MCD to demolish the building on grounds of alleged violation of the building bye-laws and the sanction plan. On 7th March, 1980 a re-entry notice was issued by L&DO on the alleged violation of the provisions of the lease deed. On 10th March, 1980 another show cause notice was issued by L&DO.
7. The constitutional validity of these notices was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (1986) 1 SCC 133. The said petition was decided vide order dated 7th October, 1985 and the impugned notices were quashed. Review petition 670/1985 was filed by Union of India, however the same was dismissed vide order dated 5th November, 1985 and the order dated 7th October, 1985 was by confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. Subsequent thereto, the impugned notices dated 2nd November, 1987 were issued by the L&DO for re-entry and recovery of the subject property.
9. L&DO also filed CS(OS) No. 2480/1987 for recovery of possession of the said plots by re-entry, termination of lease on the pleas that the new building has been constructed in excess of sanction plan, parts thereof have been used for purposes other than newspapers. In view of the alleged breaches, the lease had also been terminated.
10. ENPL filed a separate suit bearing CS (OS) No. 52/1988 impugning the purported termination of lease as illegal and invalid and for injunction restraining the L&DO from disturbing possession of ENPL, use and enjoyment of the subject property. It is the case of ENPL that the impugned notices were in contempt of the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In CS (OS) No. 52/1988 vide order dated 18th December, 1989 this Court was pleased to stay the operation of two impugned notices dated 2nd November, 1987 issued by L&DO with respect to re- entry and directing the tenant to pay the rent to L&DO instead of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. The relevant part of the said order is as under:
“After going through the show cause notice and the documents, orima facie, it appears that ‘in substance, most of the grounds, prior to the judgment, v/ere repeated in the impugned show cause notice, which was issued after the judgment of the Supreme Court. However, this question has to be decided on merits, after trial.
In addition, plaintiffs have filed various documents to shov; that huge expenses are incurred by plaintiffs, for maintaining the building, payment of property taxes and other charges. Moreover, plaintiff no.l has been the lessee, under the lease-deed and constructed the. building, at its owm expense. Plaintiff No.l cannot be denied the benefits# as lessee. Thus, in my view, plaintiffs have got a good prima facie case.
Plaintiffs are in possession of the premises and have been enjoying all the benefits as lessees, for the last several years. Thus, the balance of convenience, also lies in their favour. For this reason, it can be safely said that in case, plaintiffs are denied the benefits a lessee, then, they will suffer an irreparable loss and injury,
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, and till the decision of the suit, the operation of the impugned notice dated November 2,1987, is stayed.”
11. In the present case, issues arising in CS(OS)2480/1987 and CS(OS)52/1988 were consolidated and recasted on 3rd May, 2007. Evidence was concluded and the matters were to be finally heard.
12. Oral submissions have now concluded in these cases.
13. Vide order dated 15th July, 2019, the L&DO was directed to bring charts of computation of the ground rent, charges of conversion and misuse charges and the basis for the imposition of such charges qua the subject property. The relevant part of the said order is as under:
“Ld. Senior Counsel on behalf of Express Newspapers
Ltd. has partly made his submissions. Mr. Amit Kataria, (M:9958482545) Land and Development Officer is present in Court along with Mr. A. Subba Rao, Id. counsel. On the next the L&DO, shall bring charts of computation of the ground rent, the charges for conversion and the misuse charges and the existing provisions, which form the basis of which the said charges are computed. The said computation shall be brought in respect of amounts due on the date of the suit as also the current date. The same shall be without prejudice to the stand of the respective parties on merits.
List for further submissions on 2th August, 2019 at 2: 15p.m.”
14. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit of Mr. Bakshi, Deputy Land and Development Officer has been handed over to the Court. According to the L&DO, the dues that have been calculated as per the Press Plot Policy, 2011 are to the tune of Rs.17,684/- Crores.
15. Mr. Bakshi, is present in Court along with four other officials from the department. Mr. Bakshi stands by the aforesaid computation.
16. On a query to Mr. Bakshi and his team, as to what is the circle rate in the ITO area currently, it is submitted that the circle rate is approximately Rs. 23 lakhs per square meter. The total area, which is in the occupation of ENPL is 5000 square yards.
17. These facts are recorded for the purpose of future reference by the Court at the time of rendering the final judgement.
18. Let the affidavit of Mr. Bakshi be notarized and be filed with an index with the Registry. Let the Plaintiffs file their computation in response to the same.
19. Insofar as the issue of payment of the counsels’ fee is concerned, vide order dated 14th November, 2022 it was reiterated that the appearance of Mr. A. Subba Rao, Id. Counsel and Ms. Meera Bhatia, Id. Counsel has been recorded right from inception. Thus, there can be no doubt that these counsels have been representing the concerned Ministries and the L&DO. In view thereof, the L&DO was directed to clear all pending memos of its Counsels who have been appearing in these matters, within four weeks. The relevant part of the said order is as under:
“4. Ld. Counsels for the Union of India have raised issues of non-clearance of their memos by the Land and Development Office (L&DO). On the last date, Ms. Katyani Mathur, Superintendent from the L&DO was present before this Court and had submitted that she would look into the clearance of the said memos.
5. Today, Mr. Sudhir Mishra, Deputy L&DO submits that the Department is unable to trace the appointment orders of the Id. Counsels for the Union of India in these matters. Hence, an objection is being raised within the Department.
6. It is seen from the record that Mr. A. Subba Rao, Id. Counsel has been appearing in these matters right from inception, both before this Court, as also, before the Supreme Court, and his appearance is recorded in the order dated 15th December, 1987 and thereafter in these matters. So also, Ms. Meera Bhatia has been appearing in these matters, as is evident from the order dated 24 July, 1996 wherein her appearance has been recorded for the first time. Considering the foregoing facts, the Department’s objections would not be correct. The appearance being recorded would itself be evidence of the said counsel Mr. A. Subba Rao and Ms. Meera Bhatia having been engaged by the UOl.
7. Accordingly, the L&DO is expected to clear all the pending memos of its counsels who have been regularly appearing in these matters, within four weeks. Mr. Mishra ensures this Court that the pending memos would be cleared, within four weeks.”
20. Thereafter, vide order dated 3rd August, 2023 it was again directed that the fees of both the Counsels shall be released on an early date. Mr. Suvasish Das, from the L&DO was also directed to be present along confirmation of payment of fees. The relevant part of the said order is as under:
“Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, Id. CGSC submits that he has obtained instructions and a decision has been taken by the Union of India to pay Mr. A. Subba Rao, Id. Counsel’s memos on the basis of the schedule of charges of Standing Counsel and Ms. Meera Bhatia, Id. Counsel’s memos on the basis of the schedule of charges of Panel Counsel. Accordingly, fees of both these counsels shall be released on an early date, in any case, by the next date of hearing.”
21. Today, Mr. Bakshi submits that he has written to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Union of India for a meeting for resolving the issue of payment of the Counsels’ fee.
22. Considering that (late) Mr. A. Subba Rao and Ms. Bhatia, advocates have been appearing in this matter before this Court for a long time, let a meeting be held between L&DO, the Ministry of Law and Justice, Union of India as also Ms. Bhatia and LRs of Mr. A. Subba Rao to resolve the issue of payment of counsels’ fee. Such a meeting shall be held before 10th January, 2024 and on any further days thereafter so that the same is resolved.
23. List on 6th March, 2024.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DECEMBER 18, 2023/dk/kt

CS(OS) 2480/1987 & 52/1988 Page 2 of 2