Delhi District Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Shanti Devi Through Legal Heirs on 28 November, 2025
RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL
JSCC-CUM-ASCJ-CUM-GJ-02, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RCA SCJ: 13/18
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chariman.
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
.........Appellant / Defendant no. 2
VERSUS
Smt. Shanti Devi (Deceased)
Through her LRs.
1. Smt. Bhagwati Devi
W/o Late Sh. Nanak Chand,
R/o 575. Gobind Puri, Kankar Khera,
Meerut, U.P.
2. Smt. Basanti Devi
W/o Sh. Nanak Chand,
R/o 104, Rafi Pura, Prabhat Nagar,
Saket, Meerut, U.P.
3. Smt. Santosh Devi
W/o Sh. Ram Dhan.
R/o 231-A, Vikas Nagar.
Karnal, Haryana.
4. Smt. Kamlesh Rani
W/o Sh. Jagdish Kumar,
R/o 616-A, WZ-Block.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
Page no. 1 of 16 28.11.2025
Digitally signed
by VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.28
17:15:47 +0530
RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs
Village Tihar, New Delhi
5. Smt. Kalawati (Deceased)
Through her LRs.
(a) Sh. Ram Chander - Husband
S/o Sh. Chheda Lal
(b) Sh. Dinesh Son
(C) Ms. Pushpa - Daughter
(d) Ms. Lata Rani Daughter
Through their Father Sh. Ram Chander.
All R/o 341, Sanjay Nagar, Meerut, U.P
.
..........Respondent no. 1 /PLAINTIFFS
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)
Through its Commissioner.
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006
Delhi-06
........Respondent no. 2 /Defendant no. 1
JUDGMENT
1. This is the appeal against the judgment dt. 16.01.2018 passed by the court of Ld. Civil Judge -02, West, THC, Delhi in suit no. 12526/16 titled as Ms. Shanti Devi Vs MCD and Ors vide which suit of the plaintiff was dismissed, however, the issue no. 2 and 3 were also decided against the defendant no. 2 / appellant / DDA.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 2 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2025.11.28
17:16:00
+0530
RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs
APPEAL
2. The appeal has been filed by the DDA challenging the finding of the court on issue no. 2 and 3 in the suit which were decided against the appellant / DDA, on several grounds. Firstly, that the trial court had not examined the relevant facts. That in the suit, the plaintiff himself had failed to lead any evidence and accordingly, suit should have been dismissed on the basis of the same and there were no requirement of giving any adverse finding against the appellant. That issue no. 2 and 3 should have neither be framed nor could be decided in the suit, which was the suit only for permanent and mandatory injunction. That said suit itself was not maintainable, as plaintiff was required to file a comprehensive suit for declaration alongwith the consequential relief of possession. It is further stated in the appeal that the trial court also failed to appreciate that khasra no. 1550 was one of the two khasra number of the land alleged by the plaintiff herself and said khasra number was duly mentioned in the document Ex.PW1/1 i.e. award and the trial court also did not take into account the documents proved by the DDA as Ex.DW1/2 to Ex.DW1/7, which were material documents. Again it was also not appreciated that khasra no. 1551 was duly mentioned in Ex. DW1/2. Again the trial court also failed to appreciate that no material questions were asked in the cross- examination of DW1 with respect to the location of land in question and with respect to acquisition of the land, the removal of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 3 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2025.11.28 17:16:09 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs encroachment and copies of demolition dairy, the possession of the suit land with the appellant only. That trial court also failed to appreciate the suit was not apparently covered u/S 53 B (i) of Delhi Development Act, 1957. Lastly it is stated that there was no cause of action in favor of plaintiff. Accordingly, it has been prayed that judgment and decree dt. 16.01.2018 may be set aside qua issue no. 2 and 3.
REPLY TO THE APPEAL
3. In the reply to said appeal, preliminary objections have been taken and several paragraphs of the appeal are stated to be matter of record. In reply on merits, the appeal is stated to be barred by limitation and being delayed by 71 days. Again the LRs of respondent no. 1 have stated the facts of the case at length and questions have been raised on the proceedings of the acquisition of the suit land. Again several judgments have been cited with respect to law of land acquisition. Lastly, it has been prayed as DDA/appellant may be restraint from the suit property and not to interfere in the possession of the respondents. 3.1. It is pertinent to mention that reply of the said appeal was annexed with the affidavit of one Sh. Jagdish Kumar Saxena, however, said person was not there in the Memo of Parties of the appeal and again his name was also not mentioned as being the LR of the deceased plaintiff, as reflected from amended memo of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 4 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2025.11.28 17:16:18 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs parties of the suit. Accordingly, at the very outset, said reply cannot be taken into consideration by the court. 3.2. The respondent no. 2 / MCD did not file any reply to the appeal.
3.3. It is also pertinent to mention that the application u/S 5 Limitation Act filed on behalf of appellant seeking condonation of delay was allowed by the court vod 03.09.2024.
ARGUMENTS
4. The arguments advanced by the ld. counsel of appellant were heard. The ld. Counsel for LRs of respondent no. 1 failed to file submissions despite opportunity being given.
4.1. It is further observed that as the present appeal only pertains to the legality of the findings given by the trial court on issue no. 2 and 3, I do not find any requirement to delve into the facts of the present case and the only appreciation required is with respect to the legal position. For ready reference, the issue no. 2 and 3 as framed by the trial court on dt. 10.04.2007 are reproduced as follows:
(2) Whether the suit land found part of khasra No.1836min., 1550min and 1551min of Village Tihar duly acquired vide award No.1916? OPD (3) Whether the suit land has been acquired and placed on disposal by DDA? OPD (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 5 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.28 17:16:26 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs FINDINGS
5. On perusal of the amended plaint of the suit, I am of the considered and confirm view that at the very outset, the suit itself was not maintainable from the very inception. As per the prayers of the plaint, the plaintiff had sought permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in the construction / repair of boundary wall around the suit land, shown in red colour in the site plain, claiming that she and her predecessor-in-
interest were the non-occupancy tenants of the suit property, which was mentioned as the land comprising Khasra numbers 1545 and 1550, situated in Revenue estate of Village Tihar, Mehrauli, Delhi. However, nothing was specified about the dimensions and the exact location of the said land, which were compulsorily required to be pleaded as per Order VI Rule 3 CPC. At the same time, the plaintiff had sought possession of part of suit land from the defendant no. 1 / MCD by way of mandatory injunction, which was certainly not permissible in any eventuality. It was not a suit against the licensee from whom the possession can be sought by way of mandatory injunction and rather the plaintiff was under a mandate to file a suit for possession with respect to the said part of the suit land. Again even the said part of the land, which was allegedly not in possession of plaintiff has also not specified in the plaint and therefore, it was again the case of incomplete pleadings, in the absence of which, no relief of possession could be granted by the court.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 6 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.28 17:16:38 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs 5.1. It is further observed that in the WS filed by the DDA / appellant, it was specifically stated that the land situated in Khasra no. 1550 (7-4) was already acquired vide award no. 1996 and thereafter, notified u/S 22(1) of DD Act and was further transferred to residential scheme of DDA. Accordingly, the title of the plaintiff on the suit land of Khasra no. 1550 was clearly under cloud and consequently the plaintiff was required to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of her ownership alongwith the consequential relief of possession and injunction and at the same time, the plaintiff was required to challenge the proceedings of acquisition of the land by the DDA, which were certainly beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court. Therefore, it is to be further concluded that on this ground as well, the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable. In this regard reference is also made to the landmark judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy1, as follows:-
"13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/ or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly.
13.1 Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simplicitor will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory 1 (2008) 4 SCC 594.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 7 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.28 17:16:46 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner. 13.2 Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simplicitor, without claiming the relief of possession. 13.3 Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction".
5.2. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that plaintiff was required to file a comprehensive suit, as discussed above, however, the said suit remained a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction based on the plea of some entries in the revenue record. Therefore, said suit was certainly was not maintainable in the given form.
5.3. Going one step further, even if it is taken that the suit was maintainable, as same was proceeded further, it is very pertinent to mention that as it was the suit simplicitor for injunction, the court was not required to decide the question of title and as rightly argued by ld. Counsel for appellant, the issue no. 2 and 3, as mentioned above were not required to be framed, as they certainly pertain to the decision on the title of the said land. 5.4. Again, even if issue no. 2 and 3, as mentioned above were framed, the onus of same was wrongly placed upon the defendants, as the plaintiff himself had failed to specify the 'suit (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 8 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.28 17:16:56 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs land'. As discussed above, the plaintiff had not given any dimension or location of the suit property, qua which the boundary wall was to be allegedly constructed / repaired and therefore, in the absence of the said particulars, there was no occasion to determine that what was the 'suit land', which were the part of issue no. 2 and 3. By simply mentioning the area of the suit land, as per revenue record, the plaintiff was not exempted from the mandatory compliance of pleadings u/O VI R 3 CPC. In the absence of the said particulars, the court could not have been in the position to determine that qua which land injunction was being sought and again which of the suit land was to be considered as being part of a particular khasra number. Accordingly, it is to be further concluded that said issue no. 2 and 3 were wrongly framed by the trial court. 5.5. Going one step further, it is observed that the plaintiff herself, who had failed to lead any evidence to prove her case and accordingly, when the plaintiff herself had failed to prove if the suit land was part of Khasra numbers 1545 and 1550, there was no requirement on the part of the defendant to prove if the said land was acquired or not and therefore, in the absence of the evidence of the plaintiff, there was no requirement of calling evidence from the DDA/ defendant by the trial court. The evidence of DDA was certainly of no consequence, as the case of the plaintiff could not be decreed in any eventuality in the absence of her evidence to prove (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 9 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.28 17:17:04 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs the allegation of the plaintiff with respect to the allege interference by the defendants.
5.6. Even if, the evidence of the defendant / DDA was led on record, the court was not required to give any finding with respect to the title of the land and the acquisition of the same. By giving the said finding, the court had left the status of the property in limbo. On the one hand, the plaintiff also failed to prove if the suit land was part of Khasra numbers 1545 and 1550, and at the same time, the court also gave the finding that the defendant also failed to prove if the said land was acquired or not. Said finding on issue numbers two and three of the court has left the status of the property in abeyance, as it could not be concluded if the property belonged to the plaintiff or not or if it belonged to the defendant / DDA or not. Certainly, a property cannot be left without the status of its ownership or at least without the status of its possession being determined. The said finding of the court has certainly created a situation of anomaly, which can never be the outcome of any civil suit with respect to the immovable property. 5.7. At this stage, I also find it pertinent to discuss the observation made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of NATHU RAM Vs. D.D.A & ANR. dt. 01.02.2022, where it is was observed as follows:
" 30. This brings the Court to the question of the onus of the Plaintiffs of proving their ownership of the suit property. It is (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 10 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.28 17:17:12 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs well-settled that in cases of government land, there is a greater responsibility of Courts in ascertaining title of third parties. In fact, the plaintiff in such cases must establish his clear right, title and nature of possession in the property, superior to that of the Government authority and there is a presumption in favour of the Government. In such cases, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that it is not sufficient to show possession or adverse possession merely by some of stray revenue entries or records. This position was elaborated upon by the Supreme Court in R. Hanumaiah and Ors. v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department and Ors., (2010) SCC 203:
"Nature of proof required in suits for declaration of title against the Government 15. Suits for declaration of title against the government, though similar to suits for declaration of title against private individuals differ significantly in some aspects. The first difference is in regard to the presumption available in favour of the government. All lands which are not the property of any person or which are not vested in a local authority, belong to the government. All unoccupied lands are the property of the government, unless any person can establish his right or title to any such land. This presumption available to the government, is not available to any person or individual. The second difference is in regard to the period for which title and/or possession have to be established by a person suing for declaration of title. Establishing title/possession for a period exceeding twelve years may be adequate to establish title in a declaratory suit against any individual. On the other hand, title/possession for (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 11 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.28 17:17:20 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs a period exceeding thirty years will have to be established to succeed in a declaratory suit for title against government. This follows from Article 112 of Limitation Act, 1963 which prescribes a longer period of thirty years as limitation in regard to suits by government as against the period of 12 years for suits by private individuals. The reason is obvious. Government properties are spread over the entire state and it is not always possible for the government to protect or safeguard its properties from encroachments. Many a time, its own officers who are expected to protect its properties and maintain proper records, either due to negligence or collusion, create entries in records to help private parties, to lay claim of ownership or possession against the government. Any loss of government property is ultimately the loss to the community. Courts owe a duty to be vigilant to ensure that public property is not converted into private property by unscrupulous elements.
16. Many civil courts deal with suits for declaration of title and injunction against government, in a casual manner, ignoring or overlooking the special features relating to government properties. Instances of such suits against government being routinely decreed, either ex parte or for want of proper contest, merely acting upon the oral assertions of plaintiffs or stray revenue entries are common. Whether the government contests the suit or not, before a suit for declaration of title against a government is decreed, the plaintiff should establish, either his title by producing the title deeds which satisfactorily trace title for a minimum period of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 12 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.28 17:17:28 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs thirty years prior to the date of the suit (except where title is claimed with reference to a grant or transfer by the government or a statutory development authority), or by establishing adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years. In such suits, courts cannot, ignoring the presumptions available in favour of the government, grant declaratory or injunctive decrees against the government by relying upon one of the principles underlying pleadings that plaint averments which are not denied or traversed are deemed to have been accepted or admitted. A court should necessarily seek an answer to the following question, before it grants a decree declaring title against the government : whether the plaintiff has produced title deeds tracing the title for a period of more than thirty years; or whether the plaintiff has established his adverse possession to the knowledge of the government for a period of more than thirty years, so as to convert his possession into title. Incidental to that question, the court should also find out whether the plaintiff is recorded to be the owner or holder or occupant of the property in the revenue records or municipal records, for more than thirty years, and what is the nature of possession claimed by the plaintiff, if he is in possession - authorized or unauthorized; permissive; casual and occasional; furtive and clandestine; open, continuous and hostile; deemed or implied (following a title).
17. Mere temporary use or occupation without the animus to claim ownership or mere use at sufferance will not be sufficient to create any right adverse to the Government. In (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 13 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.28 17:17:34 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs order to oust or defeat the title of the government, a claimant has to establish a clear title which is superior to or better than the title of the government or establish perfection of title by adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years with the knowledge of the government. To claim adverse possession, the possession of the claimant must be actual, open and visible, hostile to the owner (and therefore necessarily with the knowledge of the owner) and continued during the entire period necessary to create a bar under the law of limitation. In short, it should be adequate in continuity, publicity and in extent. Mere vague or doubtful assertions that the claimant has been in adverse possession will not be sufficient. Unexplained stray or sporadic entries for a year or for a few years will not be sufficient and should be ignored. As noticed above, many a time it is possible for a private citizen to get his name entered as the occupant of government land, with the help of collusive government servants. Only entries based on appropriate documents like grants, title deeds etc. or based upon actual verification of physical possession by an authority authorized to recognize such possession and make appropriate entries can be used against the government. By its very nature, a claim based on adverse possession requires clear and categorical pleadings and evidence, much more so, if it is against the government. Be that as it may."
5.8 Accordingly, in view of the said observation, i am of the view that the findings given by the trial court with respect to the title and acquisition of the land in question on issue no. 2 and 3 were (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 14 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.28 17:17:44 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs given in casual manner without considering the fact that the government land was involved in the suit.
CONCLUSION
6. In view of above discussion, it is held that issue no. 2 and 3 have been wrongly decided by the trial court and accordingly, the judgment dt. 16.01.2018 is hereby modified to the effect that the findings given by the trial court on issue no. 2 and 3 are hereby set aside.
6.1. Again it is also clarified that if till date DDA has not taken the complete possession of the land in terms of acquisition proceedings vide award no. 1916 and if the LRs of plaintiff are found in illegal possession, the DDA / appellant is certainly at liberty to recover the said possession, as after determination of rights of the parties by way of civil suit and appeal, the 'due process of law' has been clearly followed. In this regard, reference is made to the judgment of Mehvish Adil & Ors v. Delhi Wakf Board & Ors., [CRP 223/2019, decided on 15th December, 2021], wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed in respect of Waqf land, which is also in the nature of a public land, as under:
"33. As held in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs, (2012) 5 SCC 370, 'due process' need not always mean a process initiated (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 15 of 16 28.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.28 17:17:51 +0530 RCA SCJ . 13/18 DDA Vs. SHANTI DEVI THROUGH LRs by the owner it can be any judicial proceedings where the respective contentions of the parties are adjudicated in a free and fair manner and with proper opportunity being afforded to the parties. The observations of the Supreme Court in Maria Margarida (supra) are as under: ... 35. Thus, it is the settled legal position that 'due process' need not mean only an active process initiated by the owner of the property. It can even mean rejection of relief in a proceeding initiated by the occupants/encroachers or persons in possession."
Accordingly, appeal stands disposed off as being allowed. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.28 17:18:01
+0530
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/28.11.2025 (Announced in open court On 28.11.2025 ).
Note: This judgment contains 16 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK KUMAR Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.28 17:18:07 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/28.11.2025 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), Page no. 16 of 16 28.11.2025