Delhi District Court
R.P. Mathur vs Hardyal Meena Ors on 17 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRAGATI,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
JUDGMENT
CS SCJ No. 26166/16 Shri. R. P. Mathur S/o Late Shri Ratan Singh R/o Flat no. D-903, Plot No. 5D, Veena Coop. Group Housing Society, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077 .....Plaintiff Versus Shri Hardyal Meena, S/o Shri N.L. Meena, R/o L-2/114-B, DDA Flats, Kalkaji Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 Also At:
Flat No. D-901, Plot No. 5D, Veena Co-op. Group Housing Society, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077
2. Smt. Padmini Meena W/o Shri Hardyal Meena S/o shri N.L. Meena, R/o L-2/114-B, DDA Flats, Digitally signed Kalkaji Flats, Kalkaji, by PRAGATI New Delhi-110019 PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 Also At: 16:54:53 +0530 Flat No. D-901, Plot No. 5D, CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 1 of 17 Veena Co-op. Group Housing Society, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077
3. M/s Veena Co-op. Group Housing Society, Through Its President Plot No. 5D, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077
4. Delhi Development Authority, Through its Vice-Chairman, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023 .... Defendant SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.02.2016 DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 12.11.2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.11.2025 JUDGEMENT Plaint/Brief Facts
1. The suit in hand has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking the relief of Permanent Injunction and Mandatory Injunction.
2. Briefly stated, plaintiff's case is that he is a member of defendant no. 3 society and he is the rightful and actual owner of flat bearing no. D-903, of defendant no. 3 society wherein he is residing there alongwith his family. That defendant no.2 is wife of defendant no. 1 and both are the owners of flat CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 2 of 17 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:55:00 +0530bearing no. D-901 of defendant no. 3 society. That defendant no. 3 is a Co- operative Group Housing Society and its management is responsible for maintaining the said society as per law. The defendant no. 4 has allotted the land of defendant no. 3 society and is responsible to stop the encroachment, unauthorized construction, addition or alteration of the flats/units in violation of the sanctioned site plan.
3. That initially one Shri Surajmal Aggarwal was the allottee the aforesaid of flat No. D-901 and after his death his son Ravi Shankar Aggarwal became its owner. That thereafter the said flat bearing D-901 was purchased by defendants no. 1 and 2. That there was a common roof at 9 th Floor (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) adjacent to the flat of plaintiff, which was for common use of the occupants/owners of the society. The said suit property has also been shown open in the sanctioned plan of the society which was sanctioned by defendant no.
4. The said suit property is shown with red color in the site plan annexed with the plaint.
4. That the flats of the defendant no. 3 society were allotted by defendant no. 4 in April 2012 by way of draw and after the allotment, the occupants of the aforesaid flat No. D-901, had started raising unauthorized construction over the suit property which is above the flat no. D-802 of the defendant no. 3 society. That the members of the defendant no. 3 society lodged complaint with defendants no. 3 and 4 regarding the said unauthorized construction over the suit property, which was in common use of the plaintiff and others. Accordingly, the defendant no. 4 had initiated the proceedings against the said unauthorized CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 3 of 17 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:55:06 +0530construction and issued a show cause notice dated 25.06.2012 under Section 30(1) and 31 A of the DDA Act. Thereafter, the defendant no. 4 had also sent various reminders including notice dated 04.09.2012 and 17.12.2012 vide which the defendant no. 3 and the occupants of flat no. D-901 were directed by the defendant no. 4 to remove the unauthorized construction, however, despite the same they did not remove the same, therefore, the defendant no. 4 passed a demolition order for removal/demolition of the said unauthorized construction.
5. It is further alleged that the officials of defendant no. 4, in collusion and connivance with the defendants no. 1 and 2 and the management of defendant no. 3, in compliance of demolition order, have only partially demolished the said unauthorized construction and they intentionally did not demolish and remove the main structure i.e. Pillars, beams and major part of the unauthorized construction.
6. That it is the responsibility and duty of defendant no. 3 to take action against the unauthorized construction and to ensure the removal of said encroachment/unauthorized construction but the defendant no. 3 intentionally and deliberately failed to perform its duty. That the defendants no. 1 and 2 intend to grab the suit property in connivance with defendant no. 3, only to deprive the plaintiff and other residents from using the same for their common use. Moreover, the plaintiff is enjoying the light and air in his flat bearing no. 903 since windows of his flat open towards the suit property.
7. Further, it is alleged that the defendants no. 1 and 2 have also removed CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 4 of 17 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date: 2025.11.17 16:55:10 +0530 their original walls in the flat no. 901 and have made major structural changes therein without permission and sanction of the competent authorities. The flat No. 901 of defendants no. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the flat in question) is shown with yellow color in the site plan annexed with the plaint and the walls removed by them are shown with dotted line in the said site plan.
8. It is further stated that on 25.12.2015, while the plaintiff was out of station, then, defendant no. 1 and 2 again started raising unauthorized construction in the suit property, whereupon, the local police was called and the same was stopped. That again on 10.01.2016 the defendant no. 1 alongwith some anti-social elements started the construction work therein and when the plaintiff objected to the same then they threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the suit in hand has been filed and prayer has been made that the defendant no. 4 be directed to demolish & remove the unauthorized construction and its malba from the suit property. Further, that the defendants be directed to restore the flat in question to its original position as per the sanctioned plan of the defendant no. 3 as well as approval by defendants no. 4. Further, that defendant no. 1 & 2, thier family members, representatives etc, be restrained from raising any construction in the suit property.
9. Summons of the suit were served upon the defendants whereupon defendants no. 1 and 2 appeared before the court and filed their written statement whereas defendant no. 3 did not appear before the court. Thus, vide order dated 10.06.2016, defendant no. 3 was proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, a written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no. 3 on 21.07.2016, but vide order CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 5 of 17 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:55:16 +0530 dated 02.08.2016, the same was not permitted to be a part of the pleadings since an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was not moved on its behalf and no liberty was sought for filing the written statement. Thereafter, Ld. Counsels for defendant no. 1 to 3 appeared before the court but no application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings or for taking on record its written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no. 3. Thus, the written statement of defendant no. 3 is not a part of the record. Further, later on defendants no. 1 to 3 stopped appearing before the court, therefore, vide order dated 11.07.2022, they were proceeded against ex-parte. Further, defendant no. 4/DDA appeared before the court and filed its written statement.
Written Statement
10. In the written statement filed by defendants no. 1 and 2 it is stated that the suit in hand is not maintainable before this court as the dispute herein is between members of the cooperative society and the same is totally covered and governed by the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Society Act, 2003 and the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007 i.e. S.70 & 132 of the said Act. Further, that the defendant no. 3 society has four categories of Flats i.e. A,B,C&D. That the A Category flats are located from second floor upto eight floor and no additional space was allotted by the defendant no. 3 society to A category flats. That C category flats are located on 9th floor with additional terrace and the total consideration amount of 'C' category flats is more than the 'A' Category flats because of the same. Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date:
PRAGATI 2025.11.17
16:55:21
+0530
CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 6 of 17
11. That the plaintiff's flat falls under Category A and does not have any claim of the additional terrace whereas the flat of defendants no. 1 and 2 falls under 'C' Category. That in the documents of allotment of Sh. Ravi Shankar Aggarwal the additional terrace in Block-D of society was clearly mentioned. Further, that the roof adjacent to the 9th floor is a roof provided to the 'C' Category holders by the society at the time of allotment and the same is not a common roof and is the property of the occupant of 'C' Category flats only.
12. That the original allottee of flat No.D-901, took the possession of the flat only in the year 2015. It is submitted that the said categories were framed and category-wise cost was decided and construction in the suit property took place during the tenure of the plaintiff in the Managing Committee of the Society, whereas the defendants no. 1 and 2 have not carried out any additional construction and whatever has been done, was done prior to the possession of the flat was given to the allottee. They further denied having carried out any structural changes in the flat in question and have stated that no sanction is required for repair, renovation/furnishing of the flat.
13. Further, that the said additional terrace does not affect the light or ventilation of the plaintiff's flat as there is adequate distance.
14. That the plaintiff and his family members are trying to grab the suit property by hook or crook and in order to pressurize them, the plaintiff and his family members are adopting all the wrong and illegal tactics. That there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff, therefore, the suit in hand is not Digitally signed CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 7 of by 17 PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:55:27 +0530 maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
15. Further, in the written statement filed by defendant no. 4/DDA it is stated that the suit property is approved as a terrace for common usage and upon receipt of a complaint, a notice u/s 30(1) & 31-A DD Act dated 25.06.2012 was served upon owner of Flat no. D-901 as well as upon defendant no. 3. That thereafter the unauthorized construction was demolished by it and during inspection on 24.02.2016 it was found that complete brick work was demolished and RCC roof was found punctured. That the remaining unauthorized structure on the suit property shall be removed manually as per the directions of the court, with precautions as the force of power hammer may damage the existing house structure due to high vibration. Further, that no construction is permissible on the suit property, however, allotment thereof to any bonafide member of defendant no. 3 society is the affair of RWA of the said society and defendnat no. 4 has no role therein. That the defendant no. 4 has already executed its work fairly qua the suit property, therefore, the suit in hand is not maintainable against it and is liable to be dismissed.
Replication:
16. Separate replication to the written statements of the defendants no. 1 and 2 and to the written statement of defendant no. 4 was filed by the plaintiff wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint and denied the preliminary objections and averments in the written statement as false and frivolous. Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:55:32 +0530 CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 8 of 17 Issues
17. On the basis of pleading of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 06.03.2019 (1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief for mandatory injunction as prayed vide prayer clause (a) ? OPP (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction as prayed vide prayer clause (b) ? OPP (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP (4)Relief.
Plaintiff Evidence
18. Thereafter, the plaintiff was asked to lead his evidence whierein he got examined himself as PW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, wherein he stated that he was a member of the defendant no. 3 society. He further reiterated the averments made by him in the plaint. He also led into evidence the following documents:
1.Photocopy of conveyance deed dated 27.06.2014 (Ex. PW1/1).
2. Site plan (Ex. PW 1/2).
3. Received copy of complaint/application dated 12.09.2015 (Ex. PW1/3).
4. Received copy of complaint/application dated 27.09.2015 and (Ex. PW1/4)
5. Received copy of complaint/application dated 22.12.2015 (Ex.PW1/5).
CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 9 of 17 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:55:38 +05306. Photographs of the same are Ex. PW 1/6 [colly].
19. PW 2 HC Satish Kumar (P.S. Dwarka, Sec-23) stated that the summoned record has been weeded out in compliance of order dated 26.04.2022 of ACP (Ex. PW2/1).
20. PW 3 Sudhir (MC member, defendant no. 3 Society) brought summoned record i.e. Copy of complaint dated 12.09.2015 given by plaintiff (Ex. PW 3/A).
21. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff Consequently, the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Defendant Evidence
22. Thereafter, defendant no. 4 was givent he opportunity to lead its evidence whirein it got examined D4W1 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Kain [Director (Bldg.), DDA] who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. D4W1/A, wherein averments made in the written statement were reiterated. He also relied upon following documents:
1. The attested copy of site plain Ex. D4W1/1.
2. Copy of show cuase notice dated 25.06.2012 Ex. D4W1/2 (OSR).
3. Copy of notice under Section 30(1) of DDA Act dated 09.01.2014 Ex. D4W1/3 (OSR).
4. Copy of demolished report dated 02.05.2014 Ex. D4W1/4 (OSR).
Digitally signed by CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 10 of 17 PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:55:45 +0530
23. No other witness was examined by the defendant Consequently, the defendant's evidence was closed.
Final arguments
24. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has proved the case by leading cogent evidence and the suit ought to be decreed. Whereas it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 4 that the suit is not maintainable in the present form since the plaintiff is no longer a resident/member and it is liable to be dismissed.
25. Final Arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff And Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 4 heard. Case filed perused carefully.
Analysis and Findings Issue no.1
26. The onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. In order to prove the same, plaintiff has himself stepped into the witness box and has deposed on oath that the defendants no. 1 and 2 have raised unauthorized construction in the suit property and has also proved the site plan Ex.PW1/2 which depicts the portion (red colored) whereupon unauthorized construction has been raised by them. Further, he has also led into evidence the photographs Ex. PW1/6 (colly) of the suit property, perusal whereof reveals that some portion of the alleged CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 11 of 17 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:56:20 +0530unauthorized construction has already been demolished. On the other hand, the defendants no.1 and 2 have alleged in their written statement that the defendant no.3 society was categorized into four categories of type of at the time when the plaintiff himself was one of the members of the management committee of the defendant no.3 society and he had permitted the allotting of terrace to the owners of flats falling under 'C' Category. That the said construction had already been raised before the purchase of the flat no. D-901 by them and that since their flat no. D-901 falls under 'C' category of flats, therefore, the suit property belongs to them and the title documents of the erstwhile owner namely Sh. Ravi Shankar Aggarwal also finds mention to the effect that the flat no. D-901 was allotted to him alongwith additional terrace in Block D of the defendant no.3 society. Thus, from the averments made in the written statement, the fact that the suit property is a terrace and that there is a constructed portion in existence over the suit property is admitted by defendants no. 1 and 2. They have only alleged that the suit property belongs to them and that the said construction was already in existence thereupon before they had purchased the same. However, pertinently, the title documents of Sh. Ravi Shankar Aggarwal or of the defendants no. 1 and 2 have not been led into evidence by the defendants no. 1 and 2 to prove that the suit property was allotted to the owner of flat no. D-901 or to prove that there was already a structure in existence at the time when defendants no. 1 and 2 had purchased the flat no. D-901. Similarly, they have also not led into evidence the resolution/order/circular of the RWA/management of defendant no.3 thereby declaring that there are four type of categories of flats in defendant no.3 society or that the flat no. D-901 falls under 'C' category flats or that the so-called 'C' Category flats were allotted an additional terrace in the Block-D of the society, so Digitally signed CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Pageby no.PRAGATI 12 of 17 PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:56:26 +0530 as to prove that the suit property was allotted to the erstwhile owners of flat no. D-901 or that the owners of 'C' category flats were permitted to raise any construction thereupon by the defendant no.3 at the time when the plaintiff was also a member of the management of defendant no.3 society. Rather, the defendants no. 1 to 3 have chosen to remain ex-parte, therefore, all the claims made by defendants no. 1 and 2 remain unsubstantiated and uncorroborated.
27. As far as defendant no.4/DDA is concerned, then pertinently, it has admitted that it had received a complaint regarding unauthorized construction over the suit property and acting thereupon it had also issued a show cause notice Ex.D4W1/1 and notice under section 30(1) of DDA Act dated 09.01.2014 Ex.D4W1/4. It is also admitted by defendant no.4/DDA that there was found an unauthorized construction over the suit property and that it had partially demolished the same. During the cross-examination of plaintiff/PW1 as well, ld. counsel for defendant no.4/DDA has merely putforth suggestions to this effect and the same have been admitted by PW1. Thus, nothing contradictory has appeared in the testimony of PW1 in respect of the unauthorized construction over the suit property raised by defendants no.1 and 2 and its partial demolition by defendant no.4. Now, it is the case of defendant no.4 that the partial demolition has been carried out after taking into consideration the structural safety without damaging the housing structure of the defendant no.3 society. It is further its case that demolition was not carried out with power hammer since its force may damage the existing structure of the society. D4W1 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Kain has also deposed to this effect in his examination-in-chief. And has led into evidence the demolition report Ex.D4W1/4 in this regard. However, firstly, in CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 13 of 17 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:56:31 +0530this report there is no mention to the effect that some portion of the unauthorized construction was left from being demolished because of safety concerns. Secondly and pertinently, in its written statement it is stated by defendant no.4 that it will remove the remaining unauthorized structure manually with precautions as per the directions of the court. Defendant no. 4 has not explained as to why till now, the said remaining unauthorized structure has not been removed by it manually, if not mechanically. It is not the case that defendant no.4 required any permission from any authority to proceed ahead in this regard. It is also not its case that there is a stay order of any competent authority in this regard. There is a clear admission on the part of defendant no.4 in its written statement and in affidavit Ex.D4W1/A that the suit property is approved to be used as a terrace only for common usage and that no construction is permissible to be carried out thereupon. It has also led into evidence a sanctioned site plan Ex.D4W1/1 in this regard, perusal whereof reveals that the area adjoining the flat no. D-903 (plaintiff's flat) and flat no. D-901 (defendants no. 1 and 2 flat), i.e. the suit property, is shown as a terrace therein. Despite of the said fact, the defendant no.4 has not completely demolished the unauthorized construction over the suit property which shows that it has failed to discharge its duty in a fair manner. This court is of the view that when the factum of unauthorized construction had come to the knowledge of defendant no.4 in the year 2012 (since the show cause notice Ex.D4W1/2 was served by it upon defendant no.3 in the year 2012) then it was incumbent upon it to entirely demolish the same immediately, if not, then within a reasonable period of time particularly when the defendants no.1 to 3 had failed to show any plausible reason for constructing the same.Digitally signed by PRAGATI
CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena PRAGATI Page no. Date:14 of 17 2025.11.17 16:56:44 +0530
28. Further, the site plan led into evidence by the plaintiff has remained unchallenged as the defendants no.1 and 2 have not led into evidence their own site plan to disprove the same. Thus, this court is of the view that the nature and extent of unauthorized construction as shown in the site plan Ex.PW1/2 stands duly proved by the plaintiff and the same is required to be demolished by the defendant no. 4. The contention of defendant no.4 that the plaintiff is not a resident/member of defendant no.3 society anymore and thus there is no cause of action in his favour now does hold any water because it is a settled position of law that the existence of cause of action in favour of plaintiff is to be seen on the date of filing of the suit. In the suit in hand, plaintiff/PW1 has led into evidence his conveyance deed Ex.PW1/1 to prove the fact that on the date of filing of the suit in hand, he was a resident/ member of the defendant no.3 society. Moreover, the said fact is not disputed by any of the defendants. Therefore, this court is of the view that merely because now the plaintiff is not a member of the defendant no. 3 society the same does not throw his case into boiling water. This is so because on the date of filing of the suit in hand, the cause of action did exist in his favour. Moreover, this is a suit relating to unauthorized construction over the portion which is meant for common usage of the members of the defendant no.3 society and the same cannot be allowed to remain existing merely because the plaintiff has now shifted from the said society. Further, it is rather the duty of defendant no.4 to remove the said unauthorized construction once the factum of its existence has come within its knowledge and it cannot be allowed to shake its hands off the same merely because the plaintiff is not residing in the said society now as it not only concerns the rights of common usage of the other members of the society but it also concerns the safety of the structure of the society and CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:56:51 +0530consequently it concerns the safety of the residents of the society. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 2
29. The onus to prove this issue also lied upon plaintiff. However, apart from oral averments, plaintiff has not led into evidence any photograph or any report from the MCD or DDA to prove that the defendants no. 1 and 2 have made any illegal/unauthorized structural changes in the flat in question. Nor he has examined any witness from the defendant no.3 society or MCD or DDA to prove the same. Nor he has cross-examined D4W1 in this regard. Thus, in absence of the same, merely on the basis of oral averments it cannot be said that the defendants no. 1 and 2 have made any illegal/unauthorized structural changes in the flat in question. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.3
30. The onus to prove this issue also lied upon plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit in hand is hereby partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 16 of 17 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 16:57:03 +0530defendant no. 4 is hereby directed to demolish the remaining unauthorized structure in existence over the suit property by taking precautions in the manner that the same does not affect the safety of the entire structure of the defendant no.3 society. Defendant no. 4 is also hereby directed to remove the debris/malba of the demolished construction from the suit property. Further, defendants no. 1 and 2, their representatives etc. are hereby permanently retsrained from raising any construction in the suit property except in due process of law.
32. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.11.17 Announced in the open Court 16:57:09 +0530 on 17.11.2025.
(Pragati) SCJ-cum-RC/South-West, DWK/ND/17.11.2025.
CS SCJ 26166/16 R. P. Mathur Vs.Hardyal Meena Page no. 17 of 17