Delhi District Court
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs Nanak Ram And Others on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF AASHISH GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-01,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of
RCA DJ No. 82/19
CNR No. DLNE01-004493-2019
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board
Through C.E.O.,
Vikas Bhawan Annexe,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002 ..... Appellant
versus
1. Sh. Nanak Ram
S/o Sh. Jhumra Mal
R/o 308/2, Ramesh Park,
Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary in the
Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi. ..... Respondents
Date of institution : 27.11.2019
Reserved on : 13.11.2025
Date of Decision : 13.02.2026 Digitally signed
by AASHISH
GUPTA
AASHISH Date:
GUPTA 2026.02.13
17:21:00
+0530
RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 1 of 20
JUDGMENT
1. A plot of land bearing no. H36-A, Welcome, Seelampur, Phase I & II, Delhi is the bone of contention in the present appeal.
2. The area of said plot is claimed to be 80 square yards by the original plaintiff; while it is claimed to be only 25 square yards by the original D-4.
3. To understand the controversy at hand and how this appeal came to be filed, a brief background of the case shall be relevant.
4. Original plaintiff/R-1 had claimed before the Ld. Trial Court that he was the original allottee of the above described plot (hereinafter referred as `plot in question').
5. It was plaintiff's case that he is a handicapped man and in the year 1975-1976, he had sponsored a number of sterilization cases under the scheme of family planning of Government of India and DDA on the basis of this had allotted the aforesaid plot measuring 80 square yards. He claimed that this allotment was made in 1976 and he deposited a license fees of Rs.336/- @Rs.14/- per month.
6. After taking possession, he left Delhi for Jaipur and only came back in 1992 to realize that the said plot has been encroached upon by breaking open the locks of the temporary construction/room he had build on the said plot. As per record, the possession of the plot was taken by plaintiff in 1977.
RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 2 of 20
7. This led him to give various representations to Slum & J.J. Department of MCD/D-4 praying restoration of his possession.
8. In pursuance thereto, as per plaintiff, only an area of 25 square yards was restored to the plaintiff. It was his case that since he was allotted 80 square yards of land initially, restoration should be made of the entire 80 square yards.
9. Thus, he sued the defendants namely Union of India/D-1, Municipal Corporation of Delhi/D-2, DDA/D-3 and Additional Commissioner of Slum & J.J. Department of MCD/D-4 inter alia praying for following reliefs:
1. A decree of declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to restoration of his allotment of plot No.H-36A Welcome Seelampur Phase I & II measuring 80 sq. yds. in terms of the allotment made in the year 1975- 76.
2. A decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to permit the plaintiff to enjoy peaceful possession/occupation of the property bearing No.H-36A Welcome Seelampur Phase I & II measuring 80 sq. yds. without interference from any quarters.
3. A permanent injunction restraining defendant Slum & JJ Department from allotting plot No.H-36 A Welcome Seelampur (remaining portion) to any person other than the plaintiff.
10.The suit was contested by D-2/MCD and D-4/Additional Commissioner of Slum & J.J. Department of MCD by filing a joint written statement. In the said written statement, they admitted the allotment of plot described above to plaintiff. But, they disputed the area of allotment and took a plea that as per Government policy during the relevant period of 1975-1976, only 25 square yards of plot was allotted to the evictees of jhuggi RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 3 of 20 jhonpri cluster and also to people entitled under the family planning incentive scheme.
11.They specifically pleaded in their written statement that policy of allotment of 80 square yards of plots was abandoned by the Government in the year 1968-69. From the year 1975 onwards only 25 square yards plots were allotted to the evictees of J.J. cluster. Even under family planning incentive scheme, the Slum & J.J. Department has allotted plots measuring 25 square yards only. It was claimed that in the present case, there is no mention of the area of the plot and since there was no policy for allotment of plots measuring more than 25 square yards under the Jhuggi Jhopri Removal Scheme and under Family Planning Incentive Scheme would have been made of a plot measuring 25 square yards only.
12.It is also pertinent to note that the said defendants specifically pleaded that after allotment was made to the plaintiff, he abandoned and deserted the said plot and the same was thus, trespassed by unauthorized persons. It was their case that since plaintiff himself abandoned the plot in question, therefore, he was left with no right or claim over the plot.
13.But, when plaintiff approached the department for restoration of possession, the department took pity on him as he was a handicapped person and restored possession of only 25 square yards of land on 03.06.1994 after getting it evicted from the RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 4 of 20 trespassers. It is their case that since restoration was only allowed on 25 square yards of area, plaintiff now cannot claim allotment or restoration of entire 80 square yards of area. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.
14.Now, this suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff whereby the Ld. Trial Court vide its judgment dated 19.07.2011 has granted the following reliefs to the plaintiff:
"32. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost. Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration with regard to restoration of his allotment of plot bearing no. H36-A, Seelampur, Welcome, Phase I & II, measuring 80 sq. yards in terms of allotment made in the year 1975-76. The plaintiff is also entitled for relief of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants not to interfere in the peaceful possession and occupation of the property bearing no. H36-A, Seelampur, Welcome, Phase I & II of the plaintiff.
33. The plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, thereby directing the defendant (Slum & JJ department) from allotting plot no. H36-A, Seelampur, Welcome, Phase I & II, to any other person than the plaintiff.
34. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly."
15.It is also pertinent to note that this is the second round of litigation between the parties. The original judgment dated 19.07.20211 was taken in first appeal by the appellant herein in the first round. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. But, on further appeal, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had reversed the said judgment and directed the First Appellant Court to hear the appeal on merits.
RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 5 of 20
16.The appeal was first, on remand, put up before the court of Ld. ADJ of East District; who returned it on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and that is how the appeal eventually came before this court.
17.It is also pertinent to note that the jurisdiction qua the management of Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters etc was handed over to Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (which is the successor body having the responsibility of managing the affairs of the said clusters). This body took over the role of original D-4 and it is the said board which is in appeal in this case.
18.I may also note that the original defendants namely MCD/D-2 and DDA/D-3 have not been arrayed as parties in this appeal. Original D-1/Union of India is arrayed as R-2 in this case.
19.For sake of convenience, parties shall be referred by their rank before the trial court.
20.Now, it is the contention of the appellant/original D-4 that the impugned judgment suffers from patent irregularity. It was argued before this court that the Ld. Trial Court failed to take note of the policy of Government of India whereby some time in 1968-69, Government has stopped allotting plots of 80 square yards to Jhuggi Jhopri evictees and to persons entitled for plot under the Family Planning Scheme. If that be so, there was no question of plaintiff being allotted 80 square yards of land in 1975 or thereafter.
RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 6 of 20
21.It was argued before this court that even otherwise, the possession given to the plaintiff in 1994 was out of mercy shown by Government Department to handicapped person and when repossession order dated 20.12.1993 Ex.PW1/8 was passed, the concerned department had, in its wisdom, only thought it appropriate to give possession of 25 square yards of land to plaintiff. This, as per appellant, was a decision taken by the department out of mercy and plaintiff had no independent right to seek restoration of his allotment of 1975 as he had himself abandoned the same by leaving the site vacant and allowed the trespassers to occupy the Government property.
22.It was argued before this court that plaintiff was a mere licensee of the Government and even if it is taken that the initial license given to him was pertaining to area of 80 square yards, still, Government could again induct him as a licensee in a lesser area measuring 25 square yards only.
23.As per counsel for appellant, once Government has taken a decision to give possession of only 25 square yards of area in 1993, plaintiff cannot force the Government to give him larger area as plaintiff is a mere licensee and as such he does not have any right, title of interest in the 55 square yards of area which he now seeks.
24.It is pertinent to note that R-1/Nanak Ram never entered appearance. I may also note that even before the trial court, his RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 7 of 20 son/Ratan Lal had deposed in his lieu as his special power of attorney. Despite service on the said SPA also, none appeared on behalf of R-1 to oppose the appeal.
25.Union of India/R-2 submitted that the appeal may be decided as per law.
26.Arguments heard. Record perused.
27.The points for consideration which arise in the present appeal can be stated as follows:
1. Whether since 1968-1969 the policy of allotment of 80 square yards of plots was abandoned by the Government? If yes, its effect.
2. Whether plaintiff was allotted 80 square yards of land in 1975?
If yes, whether the plaintiff was a mere licensee in the said plot?
3. Whether the plaintiff had abandoned/deserted the license in 1977? If yes, its effect.
4. Whether the possession given to plaintiff vide letter dated 20.12.1993 Ex.PW1/8 was a fresh allotment? Could the Government make a fresh allotment to plaintiff in 1993 if he had abandoned the originally allotted plot? If yes, its effect.
RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 8 of 20 Point no. 1
28.Even though, the appellant have pleaded in the written statement that the Government had abandoned the policy of allotment of 80 square yards of plots to jhuggi jhonpri evictees or persons entitled under Family Welfare Scheme since 1968-1969, no such policy was proved on record by the appellants before the Ld. Trial Court. No such policy was even filed before this court or produced during arguments. Thus, this contention of the appellant is without any documentary proof and is liable to be declined.
29.I may note that during arguments, attention of this court was drawn to various file notings in the matter exhibited as Ex.D4/W1 and it was argued that if one peruses the said file notings, various officials of the appellant have observed about the existence of the said policy. This, as per counsel for appellant, would mean that this policy of Government existed.
30.I am not inclined to accept the said argument raised by appellant.
If there is any policy of the Government vide which a decision was taken by the competent authority to discontinue allotment of 80 square yards of land to jhuggi jhopri evictees or to persons entitled under Family Welfare Scheme, such policy should have been proved on record. At least the same should have been filed with the appeal before this court and may have been led in evidence by moving an application u/O 41 Rule 27 CPC. No such attempt was either made before the Ld. Trial Court or before this RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 9 of 20 court. Even a copy thereof was never produced before this court for its perusal.
31.In such circumstances, whether any such policy existed or not cannot be conclusively deduced only on the basis of stray observations made by the officials of the appellant in their file notings Ex.D4/W1. In such circumstances, the point under consideration is decided against the appellant.
Point nos. 2, 3 & 4
32. The Ld. Trial Court had, after extensive analysis of evidence, had concluded that plaintiff was actually allotted a plot having area of 80 square yards. The said findings of the Ld. Trial Court are contained in para 16 & 17 of the impugned judgment and the same reads as under:
"16. The next question arises before the court, what was the area of H-36A, Welcome, Seelampur, Phase- I & II, Delhi, allotted to the plaintiff. The document Ex. Px find mentioned at serial no. 3, the area as 80 sq. yards. The defendants no. 2 & 4 have placed on record the document Ex.D4-W1 which also described the area of the plot bearing no. H-36A, Welcome, Seelampur, Phase- I & II, as 80 sq. yards. The DW4/W1 Smt. Lokesh Tyagi, Assistant Director, Slum & JJ Department has also admitted in his cross examination that as per the town planner, the plot no. H-36A, Welcome, Seelampur, Phase- I & II, is of 80 sq. yards. The witness DW4/W1 has further admitted in his cross examination that the charges @ Rs.14/- per month amounting to Rs.336/- vide receipt no. 141978 through Ex.PW1/4 of the license fees has been taken from the plaintiff. The witness has further admitted that as per the scheme of the department the plaintiff was allotted a plot of H-36A, Welcome, Seelampur, Phase- I & II, measuring 80 sq. yards. The witness DW4/W1 further admitted the issuance of the document Ex.PW1/9 from the department of Slum & JJ. The defendants no. 2 & 4 admitted in their WS that the plot no. F-151-A, Welcome, Seelampur, was allotted to Sh. Badri Narayan for the family RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 10 of 20 planning incentive scheme, but denied that the plaintiff can claim parity.
17. On the other hand, the witness examined by the plaintiff as PW1 has categorically deposed that the area of the plot no. H-36A, Welcome, Seelampur, Phase- I & II, is of 80 sq. yards. So, from the perusal of record, it is proved on record that the area of H-36A, Welcome, Seelampur, Phase- I & II, was of 80 sq. yards."
33.I am in agreement with the said findings returned by the Ld. Trial Court. It is pertinent to note herein that the original allotment file qua plot in question is not traceable with the appellant. The appellant is the custodian of the various allotment files qua various properties allotted by the Government and thus, it was for them to have produced the original allotment file qua the plot in question. But, as per the file notings produced on record Ex.D4/W1, the original allotment file qua the plot in question was not traceable.
34.But, the Ld. Trial Court has taken note of a report filed by Town Planner (Slum) dated 19.11.1993 (which forms part of Ex.D4/W1) that the plot in question bearing no. H-36A measures 80 square yards. This is the file notings of the department itself and as such this conclusively shows as area of plot originally allotted to plaintiff was 80 square yards. As already noted, appellant have themselves not placed on record any Government policy to support their argument that no such plots measuring 80 square yards were not allotted at the relevant time in 1975. If that be the case, there is no error committed by the Ld. Trial Court in RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 11 of 20 coming to the conclusion that the order of allotting the plot to plaintiff was actually of 80 square yards.
35.But, it may be recalled now that as per pleadings of plaintiff, contained in his plaint, after the possession of the plot was handed over to the plaintiff (which was some time in 1977) (see para 4 of the plaint), he left Delhi and went to Jaipur. He, admittedly, came back in 1992 only. This fact is again asserted by his son/PW-1/Ratan Lal in evidence (see para 2 and 3 of Ex.PW1/A wherein it is claimed that plaintiff took possession of the plot on 04.06.1976 and thereafter left Delhi and went to Jaipur due to unavoidable family circumstances and came back in 1994). This clearly shows that after the allotment in 1976/1977, plaintiff on his own went away to Jaipur and only returned back in 1992.
36.Now, it is the specific case of appellants that this amounts to abandonment of the allotted plot by the plaintiff and thereafter, plaintiff was left with no right, title or interest in the property. Appellant further asserted that it was only on the representation of the plaintiff and keeping in mind the fact that plaintiff is a handicapped person, Government/department took pity on him and proceeded to give him possession of 25 square yards of area of the same plot.
37. Ld. Trial Court has taken the view that such act of the plaintiff would not amount to abandonment because of observation made in the file noting produced by the appellant. The said finding of RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 12 of 20 the Ld. Trial Court is contained in para 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment:
"18. The next question arises whether the entire area was allotted to the plaintiff Sh. Nanak Ram. It is asserted by the plaintiff in his plaint that H-36A, Welcome, Seelampur, Phase- I & II, was allotted for planning incentive scheme through document Ex. Px. The defence of the defendants no. 2 & 4, is that the plaintiff has abandoned the plot himself which lost the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property. But, the defendants themselves have placed on record document Ex.DW4/W1 which got find mentioned, "Once the possession of the plots are handed over to the regular/ original allottees, it is their responsibility to protect their land/ plots from encroachment and trespassers except in cases of widows and physically handicapped. In case of rightful allottees, widows and physically handicapped, wherein, they have dispossessed by the unscrupulous elements, we have to take action to evict the unauthorized occupants with the help of police,"
19.Through these notings, the defendants have admitted that it is their duty to keep the allottees properly free from encroachment and trespass. As, admittedly, the plaintiff is handicapped. So, the plea by the defendants that by abandoning the suit property by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has lost the rights in the suit property is not sustainable."
38.In my humble opinion, the Ld. Trial Court has erred in not considering the said scheme of the appellants in correct light. The Ld. Trial Court had partly relied upon the notings quoted above in para 18 and 19 of the judgment and has failed to take note of the entire notings. The entire file noting dated 22.11.1993 of the concerned Joint Director (from which the portion has been picked up by the Ld. Trial Court) reads as under:
RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 13 of 20 "JT.DIRECTOR (JJ) Reference Commissioner's minutes dated 2.11.93 at page 4/N, it is mentioned that this file was given to the TP(S&JJ) by me with the request to let us know whether plot No. H-36-A is a regular plot and has been shown in the layout plan of Seelampur Ph. I & II & also through light about the allotment/regularisation of plots measuring 80 sq. yds. to those who have gone for sterlization or motivated cases of family planning. The report of the TP(S&JJ) is very clear and we may only restore the possession of only 25 sq. yds. plot to Sh. Nanak Ram as per the policy.
Once the possession of the plots are handed over to the regular/original allottees, it is their responsibility to protect the their land/plots from encroachment & trespass except in the cases of widows and physically handicappeds. In the cases of rightful allottees i.e. widows & physically handicapped, wherein, they have dispossessed by the unscrupulous elements, we have to take action to evict the unauthorised occupants with the help of the police.
In this case, the possession of 25 sq. yds. plot can be restored to the rightful handicapped, provided he has not sold out the plot and on the conditions as referred at 'X' page 5/N. The area of the plot is to be restored only 25 sq. yds. and not 80 sq. yds. as claimed by the applicant Sh. Nanak Ram S/o Sh. Jumra Mal.
We may also enquire from him, the name of the person who has dispossessed him from the plot No. H-36-A (25 sq. yds.), Seelampur Ph. I & II so that the matter could be referred to the SHO of the area for police assistance at the time of eviction.
For perusal/orders please.
(KRISHAN LAL) Jt. Director-I(S&JJ) Dt: 22.11.93)"
39.If one peruses the entire file notings, it is evident that therein the entire case of plaintiff was considered at an appropriate level and eventually the department decided only to restore possession of 25 square yards and not 80 square yards of land. In the notings referred by the Ld. Trial Court in para 18/19 of the judgment, the assistance to handicapped and widow people can be given only when there is dispossession by the unscrupulous elements and not when there is a case of abandonment of property/license by the RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 14 of 20 allottee. In my humble opinion, the Ld. Trial Court erred in not reading the said noting holistically and only read it in part.
40.The complete reading of the said noting makes it evident that while considering the case of the plaintiff afresh in 1993, Government decided to give possession of only 25 square yards of land. The finding of the Ld. Trial Court that it was the duty of appellant/D-4 to protect possession of plaintiff is incorrect. This finding is based on the notings dated 22.11.1993 (forming part of Ex.D4/W1). But, as noted above, there is no noting where D-4 is cast with a duty to protect possession of plaintiff. It is only recorded where rightful allottees i.e. widows and physically handicapped have been dispossessed by unscrupulous elements, action to evict the unauthorised occupants with the help of police is taken. But, in the present case, there was no dispossession of plaintiff by unscrupulous elements. As per his own case, he himself abandoned the license and that led to occupation by some other person. Thus, once plaintiff himself abandoned his license, he had no right to insist restoration of possession on the alleged ground of dispossession.
41.As per plaintiff's own case, he was a mere licensee by virtue of allotment made in 1976/1977. Thus, when plaintiff entered possession of 80 square yards of area in 1976/1977, he did so in the capacity of a licensee. The Government was the licensor and plaintiff was the licensee. He himself went away, essentially abandoning the property. When he came back in 1992, RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 15 of 20 considering the condition of plaintiff, Government/department considered his case sympathetically and decided to not to give back the area of 25 square yards in 1993.
42.A licensor who had initially given a larger area to a licensee, can give a fresh license to his licensee at the same place, this time of a lesser area. There is nothing in law, which prevents a previous licensee to get a fresh license of a lesser area.
43.U/s 62 of Indian Easement Act, 1882, cases of deemed revocation of license are enlisted. U/s 62(f) of the said Act, where a license is granted for a specific purpose and the same is abandoned, the license is deemed to be revoked. In the present case, it was the specific case of the appellant that plaintiff/R-1 had himself abandoned and deserted the property and only on taking pity on him, it was thought to give him 25 square yards of area. This was in 1994.
44.Thus, the exact case which transpired in the present scenario, as per plaintiff himself, was that after he took possession of 80 square yards of land in 1976/1977, he essentially abandoned his license and the property was trespassed by some other persons. This, u/s 62(f) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 would amount deemed revocation of license. The Ld. Trial Court did not take notice of the said provision of law and went on to hold that the appellant/D-4 was duty bound to protect the land from encroachment and trespass. The said duty may only apply in cases RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 16 of 20 where there is no abandonment of the license by the allottee/licensee and not in cases where the allottee/licensee himself abandons the license for close to 16 years and returns thereafter to claim possession. In my humble opinion, once there was complete abandonment of license by the plaintiff, the license was revoked u/s 62(f) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 and thereafter, it was open to the appellant/D-4 to allot any other area including lesser area, if so deemed appropriate.
45.Now, when in 1992, plaintiff came back, on his representation, the Government essentially allowed him fresh license measuring 25 square yards area; in which and in its wisdom, it did not deem it necessary to give him license of the original 80 square yards of area. Plaintiff being a mere licensee could have no right, title and interest in the land given on license to him and therefore, he cannot now claim that the license to the entire 80 square yards of area should have been restored to him when he came back in 1992.
46.Infact, the letter offering possession of 25 square yards area to him Ex.PW1/8 is very clear in this aspect. The same reads as under:
RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 17 of 20 "SLUM & JJ DEPARTMENT OF MCD OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR/EZB COMMUNITY HALL : WELCOME SEELAMPUR NO. AD/EZB/S&JJ/93/1216 Dated: 20/12/1993 To Sh. Nanak Ram, C/o R-308/2, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Sub: Plot No. H-36/A, Seelampur Ph. I & II, Delhi Sir, In continuation to this office letter No. AD/EZB/S&JJ/93/1191 dated 28.10.93 and with reference to your letter dated 1.11.93 on the above cited subject, I am directed to inform you that Addl. Commr. (S&JJ) is pleased to restore plot of 25 Sq. Yds, out of 80 Sq. Yds. plot vide his orders dated 8.12.93 of the said plot No. H-36/A, Seelampur Ph.I&II subject to the furnishing of following documents/information :-
1. You are required to furnish an undertaking to the effect that you have not sold out/creating IIIrd party interest in the plot. Please also declare that after having re-gained the possession of the said plot it would be entirely your responsibility to protect your property in future from such person.
2. You are also requested to let this office know name and address/full particulars of so called unscrupulous person who had thrown you out/dis-possess from the plot in question so that an FIR could be lodged with S.H.O. concerned in this regard and Police assistance could be taken to regain the possession of 25 Sq. Yds. land.
The above said documents/information may be furnished within 7 days from the receipt of this letter.
Yours faithfully, ASSTT. DIRECTOR/EZB S&JJ Copy to: Jt. Dir.-I(S&JJ) for kind information pl."
47.A bare perusal of the same again shows that in 1993, the concerned department, in its wisdom, chose to give possession of only 25 square yards of area and nothing more. Since, plaintiff has not pleaded or proved any right, title or interest in the entire 80 square yards of area; and he admittedly was a mere licensee of the Government; therefore, there cannot be any question to the RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 18 of 20 authority of the Government to only give a lesser area when the plaintiff came back to them in 1992. Thus, in my humble opinion, the Ld. Trial Court has erred by not appreciating the matter in the light of the above noted facts and circumstances.
48.At this stage, I may note that plaintiff had also raised a contention of parity before the Ld. Trial Court. In my humble opinion, it is not clear from the record that the parity which the plaintiff is claiming qua one Badri Narayan would apply to him or not. This is because, he does not say in the plaint that Badri Narayan had also abandoned the property and subsequently he was again allotted/given possession of entire 80 square yards of area. His simple case is that one Badri Narayan was given 80 square yards under the Family Planning Scheme and therefore, he is also entitled to similar area. Since, the facts claiming parity, on a bare perusal, differ between Badri Narayan and plaintiff, it would mean that plaintiff is not similarly placed with Badri Narayan. Therefore, the plea of parity before the Ld. Trial Court was misplaced.
49.To summarize, in my humble opinion, point no. 1 noted above is liable to be decided against the appellant. Appellant has failed to show from record that the policy of allotment of plot of area 80 square yards was abandoned by Government in 1968-1969.
RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 19 of 20
50.Again, as per record, the original allotment made to plaintiff was of 80 square yards of land and plaintiff was a mere licensee of the Government. Point no. 2 is decided accordingly.
51.In my humble opinion, as per plaintiff's own case, he had abandoned his license in 1977 and a fresh allotment of a lesser area i.e. 25 square yards was then made to plaintiff vide letter dated 20.12.1993 Ex.PW1/8. The Government was within its right to do so and thus, the Ld. Trial Court erred in allowing the suit of the plaintiff.
52.In my humble opinion, considering the above, point no.3 and point no. 4 noted above are liable to be decided in favour of the appellant/original D-4 and against R-1/original plaintiff.
53.Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 19.07.2011 is set aside. The suit is dismissed.
54.Let a decree sheet be prepared.
55.Let copy of the judgment passed in appeal along with decree sheet be sent to Ld. Trial Court. Digitally signed by AASHISH AASHISH GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.02.13 17:21:12 +0530 Announced in the Aashish Gupta open Court on 13.02.2026 District Judge-01, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi RCA DJ 82/19 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vs. Nanak Ram & ors. 20 of 20