Delhi District Court
Vijay Kumar Bajaj vs Sh. R. D. Nath on 11 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMEER BAJPAI, JSCCCUMASCJ
CUMGUARDIAN JUDGE (WEST): DELHI
RCA No. 3/15
Unique Case I.D. No. 02401C0101632015
Vijay Kumar Bajaj
S/o Late Sh. C. L. Bajaj
AT PP6366, Gali No. 10
Anand Parbat Industrial Area,
New Delhi - 05. .....Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. R. D. Nath
S/o Sh. P. C. Dev Nath
S23B(1), Backside Gali No. 13,
Anand Parbat Industrial Area,
New Delhi05.
Also At :
R/o A1/67, Sector5,
Rohini, Delhi85.
2. Station House Officer,
P. S. Anand Parbat
New Delhi.
3. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. .....Respondents
Date of filing the appeal : 23.02.2015
Date of reserving judgment : 02.03.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.03.2015
RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 1/19
J U D G M E N T
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Ld. Trial Court whereby, the suit of the plaintiff (appellant herein) was dismissed being not maintainable.
2. The suit of the plaintiff before Ld. Trial Court was for permanent injunction in which he prayed to restrain the defendants from taking any action of demolition or from interfering in the peaceful use and possession of the plaintiff or to dispossess him from the suit property i.e. property bearing no. PP6366, Gali No. 10, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a lessee in respect of suit property having purchased the same from its respective rightful persons. The plaintiff paid due consideration and the documents of transfer like Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney surrender/transfer/no objection letter were issued by the rightful respective persons in his favour. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was duly transfered by its owner Ramjas Foundation on 20.10.1989 to Sh. Mahavir Prasad, Sh. Atul Mathur, Sh. Munish Batta and Sh. Anoop Wahi and after receiving due lease money a deed of transfer was validly executed on 31.08.1989. The suit property was in use and occupation of the above said persons since the time immemorial, who had raised super structure on the same. The RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 2/19 plaintiff has been using the suit property for storage of rubber parts, machinery etc. and doing his small business in the name and style of Triputi Udhyog since 10.06.1992 i.e. the date of purchase. The defendant no. 1 being in hand in glove with the officials of the defendant no. 2 has been harassing the plaintiff. On 30.06.2012, the officials of the defendant no. 2 visited the suit property and threatened the plaintiff to take illegal action/demolition against the suit property, but with the help of the locals they were restrained. Under these facts, the plaintiff has made the prayer of permanent injunction as mentioned earlier.
4. The Ld. Trial Court heard the plaintiff on the question of maintainability of the suit and dismissed the same. I deem it necessary to reproduce the relevant paras of the impugned order in which Ld. Trial Court formed opinion and reached to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable :
"ORDER ON MAINTAINABILITY OF THE PRESENT SUIT.
1. Plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction against defendant no. 1 Sh. R. D. Nath and defendant no.2 SHO, PS Anand Parbat on the grounds that he is lessee in respect of property bearing no.PP6366, Gali No.10, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi. Plaintiff further RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 3/19 averred that he purchased this property along with super structure establishment and the building existing thereon with all rights, title and interest from the rightful persons in use and occupation of the suit property. As per case of the plaintiff defendant no.2 in connivance with defendant no.1 tried to demolish the super structure existing on the suit property on dated 30.06.2012 at about 11.00 A.M. At that time, defendants could not be successful in their ill design but have threatened to come again to dispossess and demolish the suit property of the plaintiff.
2. Defendant no.1 is exparte whereas defendant no.2 has filed the status report submitting therein that DDA had infromed vide letter no.F7(56) 12/LM/WZ/DDA/453 dated 14.06.2012 alleging therein of encroachment upon govt. land at Khasra No.344, near MTNL. It is further submitted that on noticing fresh construction, an intimation was sent to DDA vide No.1031/SHO/AP dated 14.06.2012 and the work was not only stopped on 13.06.2012 but also a case of encroachment on govt. land was also RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 4/19 lodged u/s 100 DP Act vide DD No.37B dated 13.06.2012. Apart from other things defendant no.2 has alleged in the status report that the police force will be provided as and when required by DDA. The unauthorized construction was to be demolished on 27.07.2012 and information of the same was sent to DDA on 13.06.2012.
3. Vide order dated 21.07.2014, the DDA was impleaded as one of the parties and it was only thereafter, that this court put the present case for hearing arguments on the maintainability.
4. Plaintiff claims himself to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of agreement dated 10.06.1992, executed between one Sh. Mahavir Prasad and the plaintiff. This is a notarized document. This agreement is also followed by GPA of the same date, notarized along with receipt. Along with these documents, there is also one surrender/transfer/No Objection letter in respect of suit property addressed to the Secretary (Estate) Ramjas Foundation, Darya Ganj, signed by one Sh. Atul Mathur. In the agreement dated 10.06.1992, Sh. Mahavir Prasad has claimed himself to be the absolute owner of the RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 5/19 super structure and Malba on plot No. PP63, Gali No. 10, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi05, measuring 200 Sq. yards. If, said Sh. Mahavir Prasad was the absolute owner of plot No. PP63, then where was the need to write a letter to the Secretary (Estate) Ramjas Foundation in respect of plot No. PP64 (through different number)."
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in celebrated judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Vs. State of Haryana on 11.10.2011 case have held that the documents which are not registered under the relevant provisions of law, do not confer any title. Entire documents of the plaintiff are notarized documents. Plaintiff has not filed/placed on record the chain of earlier documents as to from whom said Sh. Mahavir Prasad derived title. Plaintiff has also filed on record photocopies of certain license fee receipts in the name of Sh. Mahavir Prasad in respect of plot No.PP63 along with license deed. It is not out of place to mention herein that is Sh. Mahavir Prasad was the licensee of the Ramjas Foundation in respect of the suit premises, he under no title was RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 6/19 competent to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not exercised due caution prior to purchasing the suit property, if at all purchased by him as alleged.
6. In the present case, defendant No.1 got himself proceeded exparte. This fact gives inference that this is a collusive suit filed by the plaintiff to get stamp of the Court on their invalid alleged title documents in respect of the suit property.
7. It was on considering the status report filed by defendant No.2 that the defendant/DDA informed defendant No.2 vide letter No.F7(56)12/LM/WZ/DDA/453 dated 14.06.2012 alleging therein regarding encroachment upon govt. land at Khasra No.344, Near MTNL Office. Defendant No.2 noticed fresh construction being raised and an intimation was sent to DDA vide No. 1031/SHO/AP dated 13.06.2012. The work was not only stopped on 13.06.2012 but also a case of encroachment on govt. land was lodged u/s 100 D.P. Act vide DD No.37B. All the status report of defendant No.2 of 06.09.2012 is with regard to the encroachment on the govt. land.
RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 7/19
8. Another status report of defendant No.2 dated 18.07.2012 is also considered, according to which on dated 13.06.2012, vide DD No.19A a call was made that one Ram Dev has encroached on the DDA park. At the spot, police found Sh. Yogesh Bajaj, Son of the plaintiff who was trying to erect a brick wall on a vacant plot. There the Junior Engineer of DDA Sh. Sartaj Alam along with staff was also there. On this, police stoped the construction and DDA staff demolished the wall. DDA personnel were advised to fence the plot. Police asked Sh. Yogesh Bajaj to show the property documents who had been claiming himself owner of the plot but he could not. Accordingly, the Kalandara u/s 100 of D. P. Act was drawn against Sh. Yogesh Bajaj who pleaded guilty before the evening court and paid fine of Rs.100/.
9. Now, at this stage, the plaintiff is again claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property, however, the legal position is that on the basis of the documents filed on record, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as owner of the same. In para No.1 of the plaint, plaintiff claims himself RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 8/19 as lessee in respect of the suit property. Simultaneously, he claims himself as owner also.
10. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff stoutly argued that notification for acquisition of the land in the area of Anand Parbat was passed consisting the suit property, but the DDA could never take possession of the same. As such, after expiry of statutory period to take physical possession, the concerned award of acquisition has lapsed. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also profusely argued that physical possession of the suit property was never taken over the DDA. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff in this regard relied upon the following judgments :
1. Ashwal Vaderaa Vs. Union of India & Ors.
2014 VII AD (Delhi) 182;
2. Raman Grover (Sri) Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2014 AD (Delhi) 409;
3. Ramesh Aggarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors. 211 (2014) DLT 15 (DB) and;
4. Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 9/19
11. I have carefully gone through the aforesaid judgments and Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 but do find with all reverence and humility that the question of acquisition, completion of formalities thereunder, physical possession taken by the DDA or not etc.. etc.. are not the questions relevant. The plaintiff having come to the court himself was supposed to stand on his own legs. Son of the plaintiff had already admitted in the kalandra proceedings u/s 100 of D.P. Act that he has encroached upon the suit property which is govt. land, therefore, now by way of present suit, the plaintiff cannot take all kind of pleas to cover up his illegal acts.
12. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly dismiss the suit.
File be consigned to Record Room."
RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 10/19
5. The appellant has challenged the order on the following grounds :
(a). Ld. Trial Court erroneously did not consider the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit property.
(b). Further, the Ld. Trial Court erroneously gave opinion that the documents of transfer do not confer any title to the plaintiff.
(c). Further, the Ld. Trial Court wrongly took adverse view of the fact that the appellant did not place on record the chain of earlier documents of title as started from Ramjas Foundation.
(d). Further, the Ld. Trial Court overlooked the contents of license deed in favour of Sh. Mahavir Prasad which showed that consideration was paid and the said license deed was in fact a complete document of transfer.
(e). Further, the Ld. Trial Court wrongly gave opinion that the suit was a collusive suit just to get stamp of the Court on the invalid titled documents in respect of the suit property.
RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 11/19
(f). Further, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent no. 2 and their officials manipulated the things first.
(g). Further, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the contradictory claims of the officials of the respondents no. 2 and 3 as at one place they allege encroachment on different lands and by different persons
(h). Further, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the documents as filed by the defendant no.
3/DDA suggesting that the land in situated in Chowkri Mubarkabad, which is situated atleast ½ km away from the site in question.
(i). Further, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the plaintiff only filed a suit for injunction and the court was supposed to see only the settled possession of the plaintiff which was admitted by the respondents.
(j). Further, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the admitted possession that the award no.
10B/199394, Village Sidhora Khurd was passed in respect of khasra no. 344 of the Village has been RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 12/19 made more than 5 years prior to the commencement of the new act and physical possession of the land has not been taken over and the compensation has not been paid till date and in that eventuality the provisions Section 24 (2) of the New Acquisition Act 2013 are attracted.
(k). Further, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the order of the Hon'ble High Court in RSA No. 133/2010 in respect of a property similarly situated in Anand Parbat Industrial Area.
(l). Further, admittedly the government did not take the physical possession of the property and not paid the compensation and therefore the appellant and his predecessor in interest did not loose the ownership of the premises.
(m). Further, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the notification dated 12.12.2007 wherein, it has been categorically stated that in case the possession of awarded land has not been taken under Section 16 of the LA Act, the property shall remain in the ownership of the concerned owner.
RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 13/19
(n). Further, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the affidavit as filed by Sh. P. K. Ghosh, the then Vice Chairman DDA, in Civil Writ No. 1811/1995, wherein, he categorically admit that at Anand Parbat, Sidhora Khurd, the possession of 583 Bigha 7 Biswas of land was taken by the Collector and handed over to the DDA on "as on where is basis". Thus, practically no physical possession of the land was ever taken by the DDA/respondent no. 3.
(o). Further, the Ld. Trial Court did not take into consideration the undertaking made by the DDA in Writ Petition No. 139/1993 that redevelopment plan of the land at Anand Parbat Industrial Area is under consideration and the petitioners shall not be disturbed from their present occupation.
6. In grounds (a), (b), (c) and (d), the appellant has challenged the opinion of Ld. Trial Court regarding ownership of the appellant qua the suit property . Ld. Trial Court in para no. 4 of the impugned order has opined that the documents executed in favour of the appellant do not confer any title on him. Ld. Trial Court also placed reliance upon the judgment Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) vs. State of Haryana. The appellant claims his rights over the suit property through the documents i.e. agreement dated 10.06.1992 executed between RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 14/19 him and one Sh. Mahavir Prasad, some GPA, a receipt and one surrender letter with respect to the suit property in favour of Secretary Ramjas Foundation. Definitely, these documents do not confer any right or title on the appellant and he cannot claim the relief of injunction on the basis of these documents.
7. Objections No. (e) of the plaintiff is that Ld. Lower Court wrongly opined that the suit is a collusive suit between plaintiff and the defendant no. 1. The Ld. Trial Court observed that the defendant no. 1 got himself proceeded exparte deliberately just to get stamp of the Court on their invalid alleged title documents. The Ld. Trial Court gave this opinion after considering the proceedings before it and it cannot be said outrightly that the opinion as formed by Ld. Trial Court was wrong.
8. In grounds no. (f), (g), (h), (i), the plaintiff alleges that the officials of the respondent no. 2 themselves manipulated the things and further the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the contradictory claims of the officials of the respondent no. 2 and 3 and further, the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the respondents are totally stranger and have no concern with the land and further, the Ld. Trial Court was just supposed to see that the appellant was in admitted settled possession of the suit land. The Ld. Trial Court considered a status report filed by the defendant no. 2 i.e. SHO PS Anand Parbat, which said that the RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 15/19 defendant no. 3/DDA informed it vide letter no. F7(56)12/LM/WZ/DDA/453 dated 14.06.2012 regarding encroachment upon the govt. land at Khasra no. 344, near MTNL Office. Then, the defendant no. 2 noticed fresh construction and gave intimation to the DDA on 13.06.2012 and the construction work was not only stopped but a case of encroachment on govt. land under Section 100 DP Act was registered. Under these facts, the Ld. Trial Court was not supposed to look into the facts as mentioned by the appellant. Further, the Ld. Trial Court considered the validity of the documents of the plaintiff for claiming right over the suit land. Therefore, to my mind, the Ld. Trial Court did not make any error even if, the facts as mentioned by the appellant were not considered and discussed.
9. The main contention of the appellant as made in grounds (j), (l), (m) and (n) is that the suit land has never been acquired by the DDA. The appellant relied upon the judgments "Ashwal Vaderaa Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2014 VII AD (Delhi) 182; Raman Grover (Sri) Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2014 AD (Delhi) 409; Ramesh Aggarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors. 211 (2014) DLT 15 (DB) and; Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013" but in the opinion of the Ld. Trial Court, the Judgments were not supporting the plaintiff's case. During the course of arguments also, the main contention of Ld. Counsel was that in terms of provisions of Land Acquisition Act, RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 16/19 1894 the land cannot be stated to be acquired by the DDA. Ld. Trial Court has already given an opinion that the documents on the basis of which, the appellant is claiming his right over the suit land have no document in the eyes of law. To my mind also, when the appellant is not the owner of the suit land, the provisions of Land Acquisition Act do not apply on him. Clearly, the appellant could have raised objections on the basis of provision of Land Acquisition Act, only when he was an owner of the land or having valid title or interest in the land but in the present case, he has no such right or title.
10. In ground (k), the appellant avers that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the order of Hon'ble High Court in RSA No. 133/2010 in respect of the property similarly situated in Anand Parbat Industrial Area. The appellant has not explained as to what were the facts in RSA No. 133/2010. Every case has different facts and in the case in hand, Ld. Trial Court considered the right of the appellant on the basis of the documents executed in his favour qua the suit land and reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no right at all in the suit land. The case of the plaintiff in no way could not be compared by Ld. Trial Court with the case in RSA No. 133/2010.
11. In ground (o), the appellant says that Ld. Trial Court did not take into consideration the undertaking made by the DDA in Writ Petition No. 139/1993 that redevelopment plan of RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 17/19 the land at Anand Parbat Industrial Area is under consideration and the petitioners shall not be disturbed from their present occupation. If this was the situation, the plaintiff was not supposed to file any suit in Trial Court. If any undertaking was given by DDA in the Writ Petition as mentioned above regarding the land of the appellant, the appellant's remedy was not there in the suit.
12. While dismissing the suit, Ld. Trial Court rightly observed that Sh. Mahavir Prasad from whom, the plaintiff allegedly purchased the suit land was only a licensee of Ramjas Foundation and under no title was competent to sell the suit land to the appellant. Ld. Trial Court further correctly observed that the appellant was supposed to exercise due caution prior to the purchase of the suit land and if, he has not taken due caution, he must face the consequences.
13. While dismissing the suit, Ld. Trial Court correctly considered status report as filed by the defendant no. 2 mentioning that the defendant no. 1/DDA gave information vide letter dated 14.06.2012 regarding encroachment on the government land in Khasra no. 344. The said status report also contained the fact that the intimation on 13.06.2012 was sent to DDA regarding fresh construction work and consequently, the work was not only stopped but the case of encroachment on the government land was also lodged.
RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 18/19
14. Ld. Trial Court also correctly considered the status report of the defendant no. 2 dated 18.07.2012 containing the fact that one Sh. Yogesh Bajaj, son of the plaintiff was trying to erect a brick wall on the vacant land and the police stopped the construction and DDA Staff demolished the said wall. Ld. Trial Court further observed that in Kalandra proceedings under Section 100 of DP Act, son of the plaintiff has already made admission that he has encroached upon the suit property which is a government land.
15. The plaint certainly did not have any cause of action and merit rejection. I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed. TCR be sent back along with copy of the order to Ld. Trial Court.
16. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today the 11th March, 2015.
(SAMEER BAJPAI) JSCCcumASCJcum Guardian Judge (West), Delhi 11.03.2015 RCA No. 3/15 Page no. 19/19