Delhi District Court
Mrs. Sanjee Begum vs Delhi Development Authority (Dda) on 30 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER (NORTH),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. : 198/14
In the matter of :
Mrs. Sanjee Begum
...Plaintiff
Versus
Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
...Defendants
Order :
30.06.2015
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application under Order
XXXIX rule 1 and 2 r/w section 151 CPC preferred by the
plaintiff.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff's husband had purchased
the plot bearing no. 12-B, land measuring 116 (17.4' X 60') sq.
yards out of total land area measuring 400 sq. yards, falling in
khasra no.18/7/1 & 14 situated in the village Pansali, Delhi,
Colony known as Kailash Vihar, Delhi-110042 in the name of
plaintiff in the year 2009(henceforth referred to as suit property).
It was further stated that suit property was not an acquired land
and other persons/having private property were residing nearby
without any hindrance and objection from anyone. Elaborating
Suit No.198/14 Page 1 of 11
further it was stated that plaintiff purchased the suit property
from one Ajit Singh S/o Bachan Singh on 27.07.2009 through
notarised documents i.e. Purchase Agreement, Affidavit, Receipt
and Will. In turn said Ajeet Singh had purchased the property
from one Awdesh Kumar Pandey s/o Ram Avtar Pandey and
Jasvinder Singh S/o Pyare Lal through notarised property
documents i.e. Purchase agreement, affidaivt, receipt and will on
29.01.2007. The said Awdesh Kumar and Jasvinder Singh had
purchased the said property from Sh. Ram Singh S/o Sh.
Laxman on 01.02.2000 through similar documents. Plaintiff after
acquiring the property had constructed a boundary wall and also
constructed rooms and installed amenity like hand pump.
Defendant had at no point of time disputed the possession of the
plaintiff. But later on had illegally demolished a part of property
and that too without giving any notice. Plaintiff called the police
at 100 number but no action was taken by the police against the
DDA officials. The goods of the plaintiff were lying outside the
house for two days. Subsequently, after demolition exercise by
the defendant, defendant had started construction of boundary
around the house of the plaintiff. In reference to the same
plaintiff also made complaints to various authorities, however, to
no avail. Hence, plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking
following reliefs:
i. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the
defendant to make any construction on the plaintiff's plot
Suit No.198/14 Page 2 of 11
which was demolished by the defendant.
ii. Pass a decree of permanent injunction to restraining the
respondent to create third party interest of aforesaid property
of plaintiffs in colony known as Kailash Vihar, Pansali, Delhi iii. Pass a decree for mandatory injunction against the respondent to restrain the defendant to install any machinery, vehicle and other in the property of plaintiffs.
3. WS was filed by the defendant-DDA. Preliminary objections were taken that plaintiff had not served any notice u/s 53 (B) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 before filing of the suit. Further the land in question was in kh. no. 18//7/1 (3-0) and 18//14 (4-8) which were already notified u/s 4, 6, 17 (i), vide notification no. F10(29)/96/L&B/LA dated 27.10.1999 and 03.04.2000 respectively and physical possession of the land was taken by Land Acquisition Collector on 12.05.2000 and land further has been transfered to the Engineering Wing of DDA for development. DDA has already constructed the boundary wall in and around the land. Hence, plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the land in question. It was also claimed that the land in question was an acquired one and accordingly, this Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit being barred by Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Reliance was also placed on the judgment passed in Suraj Lamps Industries P Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363, a leading judgement wherein it has been held that the GPA/Sale Agreement and Will Suit No.198/14 Page 3 of 11 i.e. unregistered documents are not the legal mode of transfer of land/affecting rights in relation to immovable property. On merits all the plaint averments were denied in toto. It was contended that the DDA had the right to remove unauthorised encroachments. Dismissal of the suit was sought for.
4. Replication was filed. The plaintiff had denied the contrary averments made in the written statement and reiterated and re- affirmed the plaint averments as true and correct.
5. Heard either side.
6. It is pertinent to note that on 01.10.14 I had passed the following order, I am quoting the same because the plaintiff has complained that the defendant had caused disobedience of the said order - preferred an application u/o 39 Rule 2A CPC:
"L d. Counsel for defendant submits that they are only making a boundary wall and there is no construction proposed as on now in respect of the land.
DDA can continue to do so, however, in case if any injunction order is passed in favour of the plaintiffs, DDA would be directed to demolish the same without any compensation. This is specifically observed.
Ld. counsel for defendant submits that they fairly concede to the said proposition. Copy dasti."Suit No.198/14 Page 4 of 11
7. Plaintiff had also filed another application u/o 39 rule 2 A r/w section 151 CPC, which was duly replied by the defendant side. I shall also dispose off the said application along with the interim application.
8. The aspect of governing the discretion at the stage of disposal of interlocutory application is well-settled and it depends purely of there being (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and (iii) on the facet of irreparable loss and injury. These principles needs to be taken into consideration.
9. Plaintiff had purchased the property through notarised documents i.e. Deed of Sale agreement, Affidavit, GPA, Receipt, possession letter and Will. Admittedly none of the document are registered. In the absence of any sale deed or even registered GPA/agreement to sell etc. to contend that the ownership rights in the property vested with the plaintiff is without any substance. Even for the sake of arguments, I take that the plaintiff could not get the sale deed registered for whatever reasons it may be, the documents relied by the plaintiff i.e. simplicitor notarised documents are bereft of any legal sanctity - does not even after any solace or comfort that indeed such a transaction actually took place at the relevant time/as stated in the documents. To Suit No.198/14 Page 5 of 11 put it otherwise, documents of sale/purchase of immovable property have to be routed through the Sub Registrar/registered only.
The previous chain i.e. which flows from Ajit Singh i.e. backwards - the transaction between Ajit Singh and Avdesh Pandey and Jasvinder Singh also suffers from the same vice. The transaction between Ram Singh and Avdesh Pandey and Jasvinder Singh is of entirely unregistered documents. There is also a General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receipt, possession letter and Will executed by one Guggal Ram in favour of Ajit Singh dt. 15.04.2008. I cannot fathom as to why said documents (of Guggal Ram) have been relied upon and what connection the said documents have with the suit property. Now there are also documents executed by one Kali Ram in favour of Ram Singh dt. 28.01.2000 again similar documents. The chain again proceeds backward. Kali Ram had purchased the property from Bandhan Preet Singh vide documents dt. 28.09.1999. The entire bunch of documents comprise of unregistered documents only. The plaintiff had also not specifically pleaded about the same and neither had placed the original of the same on record. There is no legal sanctity attached to the said transaction(s). Straightaway the judgement of Suraj Lamps Industries P Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363 is applicable in the given set of facts and circumstances. Thus, such documents cannot be taken as one which vest title unto the plaintiff in Suit No.198/14 Page 6 of 11 respect of the suit property. It also needs no reiteration that w.e.f. 24.09.2001 even for the purposes of availing the plea of part performance u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the agreement to sell has to be registered one. That being the situation plaintiff is without any legal right in the suit property.
10. Per contra DDA has placed on record the copy of Award in respect of the property No. 18/7/1, 18/7/2 and 18/14. The actual physical possession of the property was also taken over. There has been also a demolition exercise conducted by DDA in respect of the suit property. The semblance of possession has also gone. Plaintiffs, therefore, are also stripped off the possession also.
11. Ld. counsel for the defendant has relied on a judgement titled as K.N. Aswathnarayana Setty Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2014 SC
279. The same is squarely applicable in the given set of facts and circumstances. Documents of transfer also does not bind the State/the LAC.
" 9. By operation of law, as this Court quashed the de- notification of acquisition proceedings, the proceedings stood revived. In V. Chandersekaran & Anr. v. The Administrative Officer & Ors., JT 2012 (9) SC 260, this Court considered the right of purchaser of land subsequent to the issuance of Section 4 notification and held that any one who deals with the land subsequent to a Section 4 notification being issued, does so, at his own peril. Section 4 notification gives a notice to the public at large that the land in respect to which it has been issued, needed for a public purpose, and it further points out that there will be "a n impediment to any one to encumber the Suit No.198/14 Page 7 of 11 land acquired thereunder." The alienation thereafter does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition. In fact, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation. Thus the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. While deciding the said cane this Court placed reliance on a very large number of its earlier judgment including Leela Ram vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2112; Smt. Sneh Prabha et. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 540; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 177:
(AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 760); and Tika Ram & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 689: (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 805).
10. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that a person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on my ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's title.
11. In order to meet the menace of sale of land after initiation of acquisition proceedings, various States enacted the Acts and making such transfer as punishable, e.g., The Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfers) Act, 1972 made the sales permissible only after grant of permission for transfer by the authority prescribed therein. In absence of such permission if the sale is made in contravention of the statutory provisions it is a punishable offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both.
12. There is no prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff at all.
There is no need to discuss the other two ingredients i.e. the balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury in the Suit No.198/14 Page 8 of 11 absence of prima facie case. Application u/o 39 rule 1 & 2 r/w section 151 CPC stands dismissed.
13. Coming to the application u/o 39 rule 2 A CPC. It is claimed in that application that on 01.10.2014 an interim order was passed by this Court. Now the defendant has in violation of the orders of this Court installed a board on the suit property, which depicts that the suit property belongs to the defendant, same is without the sanction /permission of this Court and should be ordered to be removed immediately.
14. Reply to this application has been filed by the DDA. In reply it is stated that there is no construction over the suit land. DDA had only installed a board on the suit land with a view to safeguard the land owned by DDA and there is no breach of any interim order in as much as there was no restrain order passed/direction given.
15. Order 39 rule 2 A CPC speaks of breach/disobedience of injunction order. Now the relevant order/part of the order has been extracted. In my opinion, there is no direction given in the said order, the contempt of which/breach was committed by the defendant's side. The said order mandated that in the eventuality in case if injunction order is passed in favour of the plaintiff, DDA would demolish the boundary wall. The interim application has been dismissed. No right therefore, accrues to the plaintiffs qua the same or in respect of the boundary wall raised. As a logical consequence once the land has been bounded/a boundary wall Suit No.198/14 Page 9 of 11 was constructed no prejudice is caused to plaintiffs if DDA inform the public at large particularly the gullible persons/innocent persons that the land in question belongs to DDA land and they should not enter into any sort of transaction or to tress pass over the same. At this juncture, DDA certainly has a better right than the plaintiff and as a consequence, also having the right to install the board over the land in question. Even otherwise also there is no breach of the order - this application per se is not maintainable. Application u/o 39 rule 2 A CPC is also dismissed.
16. Pleadings of the parties are complete. Admission/ denial of documents not pressed for. Parties are not desirous to avail/ opt for any ADR u/s 89 CPC. From the pleadings of the parties following issues are framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD
4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by the reasons stated in para no.1 of preliminary objections of the WS filed by the DDA? OPD
5. Relief.
No other issue arises or is pressed for. Put up for PE on Suit No.198/14 Page 10 of 11 12.10.2014. Advance copy of the affidavit be supplied to the opposite party 10 days prior to the next date of hearing. List of witnesses be filed within 15 days from today.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (SUMIT DASS)
ON 30.06.2015 SCJ-CUM-RC (NORTH)
ROHINI, DELHI
Suit No.198/14 Page 11 of 11
Suit No. : 198/14
30.06.2015
Present : None.
Vide my separate order, application u/o 39 rule 1 & 2 r/w section 151 CPC and application u/o 39 rule 2 A CPC stands dismissed.
Issues are settled.
Put up for PE on 12.10.2014. Advance copy of the affidavit be supplied to the opposite party 10 days prior to the next date of hearing. List of witnesses be filed within 15 days from today.
(SUMIT DASS) SCJ-CUM-RC (NORTH) ROHINI, DELHI Suit No.198/14 Page 12 of 11