Delhi District Court
Ajit Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 18 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Nitish Kumar Sharma.
SCJ No.294/23
Ajit Singh
........Plaintiff
VERSUS
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
......Defendant
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
ORDER
1. Vide this Order I shall dispose off applications U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC of plaintiff and application U/o VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) r.w. 151 CPC for rejection of plaint of defendant/DDA.
Brief facts of the present case as per plaint are -
(a) That the Plaintiff is owner of built up property in Khasra No.258, 265 and 268 (2-01) situated in Village Garhi Khusro, Delhi-36. It is stated that the said property is part of regularised colony.
(b) That on 02.03.2023, the officials of defendant visited the suit property and threatened to demolish the property of the plaintiff Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 16:37:00 Date: 2025.03.18 +0530 SCJ No.294/23 Ajit Singh Vs NDMC Page No. 1 of 11 and attempted to blackmail plaintiff for ransom. It is stated that police complaint was made in this regard but no action was taken.
(c) That the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the property in question. It is stated that the plaintiffs came to know from police officials that a demolition order has been passed against the property of the plaintiff and the demolition program is scheduled for August 2022.
(d) That the plaintiffs approached the defendant but the defendant refused to intervene and asked the plaintiffs to approach the complainant to withdraw the complaint.
Hence this suit.
Application U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC
2. An application U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC was made on behalf of plaintiff seeking the relief of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from demolishing the suit property in Khasra No. 258, 265 and 268 (2-01) situated in Village Garhi Khusro, Delhi-36.
3. It is stated by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff came to know that a demolition order has been passed against the built up property of the plaintiff in the suit land. It is stated that the defendants have refused to stop the order and threatened to carry out demolition.
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.03.18
SHARMA 16:37:06 +0530
SCJ No.294/23 Ajit Singh Vs NDMC Page No. 2 of 11
4. The application was opposed by the Ld. Counsels for defendants stating that the construction on the suit land was raised by the plaintiffs after the area was declared development area without obtaining permission/sanction from DDA. It is further stated that the plaintiff has cleverly not sought the relief of injunction against demolition in the main suit but only a relief against forceful disposing has been made, to create an illusory cause of action. It is argued that the plaintiff was aware of the order regarding demolition and notice in this regard were duly issued by defendant/DDA prior to its impleadment in the present suit. It is argued that the order of demolition was passed after considering the representation.
In counter, it was argued that no notice was received by the plaintiff and as such the notice issued by the defendant/DDA is illegal.
5. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the Village Garhi Khusro has been urbanised and the village has been declared as development area. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property does not form part of the development area and is exempted as per exemption IV of the schedule of the gazette notification vide which the village was urbanised.
The said schedule reads "that area excluding the land under unauthorised colonies proposed for regularisation by the government as on the date of issue of notification, shall be development area for the purpose of the said Act".
Though, the plaintiff has not placed any material on record to show that suit land is part of unathorised colony which is NITISH Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.03.18 SHARMA 16:37:13 +0530 SCJ No.294/23 Ajit Singh Vs NDMC Page No. 3 of 11 proposed for regulation, yet even otherwise, it is pertinent to mention that as per Section 12 of DDA Act, after the area is declared as development area, no development of land shall take place without the permission from the appropriate authority. Sec. 12 (3) of DDA Act reads as under:-
Sec. 12 (3) of DDA Act: After the commencement of this Act no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out in any area by any person or body (including a department of Government) unless,--
(i) where that area is a development area, permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the Authority in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
(ii) where the area is an area other than a development area, approval of, or sanction for, such development has been obtained in writing from the local authority concerned or any officer or authority thereof empowered or authorised in this behalf, in accordance with the provisions made by or under the law governing such authority or until such provisions have been made, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations relating to the grant of permission for development made under the Delhi (Control of Building Operations) Act, 1955 (53 of 1955), and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act: Provided that the local authority concerned may 2[subject to the provisions of section 53A] amend those regulations in their application to such area.
6. Thus, it is evident that after a village is urbanised/declared development area, permission of DDA /Local Authority is required for raising any construction in the property notwithstanding the fact that the said property is included in development area or not. In judgment titled as Sushma Kapoor Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi WP (C) 12038/2019, The Hon'ble High Court NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.03.18 SHARMA 16:37:20 +0530 SCJ No.294/23 Ajit Singh Vs NDMC Page No. 4 of 11 of Delhi had observed that a construction is deemed to be unlawful, if the same is carried out without any permission.
7. In the instant case, the plaintiff has not placed on record permission from any department i.e. MCD or DDA to show that construction raised by him is authorised and in accordance with law. It is pertinent that the plaintiff has claimed to have purchased the property on the basis of SPA, however, the same has not been placed on record. It is also to be seen that the copy of Khatoni is also blank and does not mention as to whom the property stands. Further, though the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the construction in the suit land is an old construction, no documents to establish the same were placed on record. Thus, the plaintiff failed to show a prima-facie case in his favour as he failed to place on record any permission from the concerned authority for carrying out construction or that he is the owner of the suit land.
8. The application U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC accordingly, stands dismissed.
Application U/o 7 rule 11 CPC
9. By way of present application U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC defendant has stated that the present suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs as, as per LR/DDA, Village Garhi Khusro, Delhi has been declared as Urban, vide Notification No.F.7/79/ADLB/2016/CD-000383132/ NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.03.18 SHARMA 16:37:25 +0530 SCJ No.294/23 Ajit Singh Vs NDMC Page No. 5 of 11 3827-3841 dated 16.05.2017, issued under section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Thereafter, the said village has been declared under Development area yide E Notification No.F.12(152)2014/L&B/MP/Plg/2572 dated 16.06.2017. That as per provisions of section 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 no construction can be done at any land which is declared as a Development Area, without obtaining prior permission in writing of the Delhi Development Authority as per the provisions of the said Act.
9.1 That the grounds for seeking the dismissal/rejection of the present suit/plaint arise from the fact that the subject matter of the present case falls squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ATMCD Special Tribunal, as established and constituted by the relevant Act. It is stated that it is well established in legal jurisprudence that matter falling within the purview of specialized tribunals, such as the ATMCD Special Tribunal in this instance, must be adjudicated by those forums for the sake of procedural fairness, expertise, and expediency.
9.2 That furthermore, the subject matter therein directly pertains to issues covered under the jurisdiction of the ATMCD Special Tribunal. The issues raised are intricately linked to the DD Act, 1957 and the implementation thereof.
9.3 It is stated that the Khasra nos. 258, 265 & 268, of village Garhi Khusro fall under the Development area of land pooling and Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.03.18 SHARMA 16:37:31 +0530 SCJ No.294/23 Ajit Singh Vs NDMC Page No. 6 of 11 part of Sector 12 B & 7B of P-1l zone as per sector declination plan of land Pooling of DDA. The said Khasra nos, pertain to Agricultural land of Revenue Village of Garhi Khusro For development of area, Land Policy was notified by MOHUA vide notification no. S.O. 5220(E) dated 11/10/2018. That no development thereon could be undertaken which is contrary to the Master Plan and/or Zonal Plan of the said Area. The land under reference Le. khasra no 258, 265 & 268 Village Garhi Khusro doesn't fall 10 boundary Unauthorized colony/regularized colony.
9.4 It is stated that Section 30 of DD Act, 1957 empowered DDA to pass order of demolition of building where any development carried out in contravention of the master plan or zonal development plan or without the permission, approval or sanction referred to in section 12 or in contravention of any condition. Further, there is also provision under section 31A to seal unauthorized development.
9.5 That any person aggrieved by the action taken by DDA only can approach to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under section 347A of the DMC Act, 1957 as provided under section 31B of DD Act. That as per section 31E of DD Act there is bar of jurisdiction of court
10. It is prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed and reject the plaint of the plaintiff under the provisions of the order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.03.18 16:37:36 +0530 SCJ No.294/23 Ajit Singh Vs NDMC Page No. 7 of 11
11. The application was replied by the plaintiffs by stating that the suit property is a part of unauthorised colony and does not fall under the development area of land pooling but belong to agricultural land of revenue village. It is stated that ATMCD had no jurisdiction over the suit land and the suit property is specifically excluded from development area as per Clause IV of gazette notification.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsels for parties and perused the record. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for DDA that the plaintiff has alleged himself to be the owner of the suit property, however, the plaintiff has not place on record any document which show that the plaintiff is either the owner or in possession of the property. It is further argued that the plaintiff has himself stated in the plaint that he was aware about the demolition order passed and notice were issued U/s 30 and 31 A of DDA Act 1957. It is argued that the remedy of the plaintiff lies in challenging the said notices and order before Ld. ATMCD and jurisdiction of this court is barred.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that no notice was served to the plaintiff at any point of time and the said notices are illegal. It is further argued that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendants have not disputed the same.
13. As far as provisions U/o VII rule 11 CPC are concerned, the law is well settled that only the contentions as raised in the plaint are to be seen and the defence of defendants, if any, cannot be considered at that stage. Reliance could also be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Saleem Bhai and Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.03.18 SHARMA 16:37:43 +0530 SCJ No.294/23 Ajit Singh Vs NDMC Page No. 8 of 11 Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2003) SCC 557, in which the Hon'ble Court has held that :-
"A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit - before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage .............."
In Bhau Ram vs. Janak Singh & Ors. 2012(6) SCALE 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court re-affirmed the above proposition of law in following words :-
"The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendants in its written statements would be irrelevant."
14. I have considered the grounds taken by both the parties and perused the record.
15. At the outset, it is to be noted that vide present suit, the plaintiffs have sought following relief(s):-
a. Permanent injunction against the defendants, their agents, servants etc. from forcefully disposing the plaintiff from the suit property. Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 16:37:49 Date: 2025.03.18 +0530 SCJ No.294/23 Ajit Singh Vs NDMC Page No. 9 of 11
16. At the outset, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property does not form part of the development area and is exempted as per exemption IV of the schedule of the gazette notification vide which the village was urbanised. In view of the discussion made on this aspect while deciding the application U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC, the contention stands rejected as the plaintiff had failed to place on record any permission /sanction from any authority.
17. Further, from the perusal of the plaint it is evident that the plaintiff was aware that a demolition order was passed against the property in the suit land and the plaintiff had also approached the defendant with a request to not proceed with the demolition action. Yet, the plaintiff has chosen not to challenge the said order.
18. Without challenging the said order of demolition /notice, the plaintiffs herein are seeking reliefs in the form of injunction to restrain the defendants from forcibly disposing the plaintiff from the suit land/property which implies an injunction not to carry out demolition. In the considered opinion of this court, such injunction cannot be granted without challenging the order of demolition which is already in the knowledge of the plaintiff as evident nay apparent from the bare perusal of the plaint. Now, as per Sec.31 E of DDA Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Court with respect to an order appealable under 31 C of DDA Act is barred.
19. Thus, what transpires from the above is that the order of demolition /notice U/s 31 of DDA Act can be challenged before Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 16:37:55 +0530 Date: 2025.03.18 SCJ No.294/23 Ajit Singh Vs NDMC Page No. 10 of 11 Appellate Tribunal, MCD u/s 31 C DDA Act and as such this court does not have the jurisdiction to examine the legality of such order in view of the bar created by Sec. 31 E of DDA Act.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaint of the plaintiff is held to be barred U/s 31 E of DDA Act and liable to be rejected U/o 7 rule 11 (d) CPC. The plaint stands rejected accordingly.
21. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 18.03.2025. NITISH Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.03.18 SHARMA 16:38:05 +0530 (Nitish Kumar Sharma) JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/18.03.2025 SCJ No.294/23 Ajit Singh Vs NDMC Page No. 11 of 11