Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sh. Baljeet Singh vs Sh. Iqbal Singh on 9 October, 2019

          IN THE COURT OF MR. SUNIL BENIWAL ,
      ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -02, (CENTRAL), DELHI

Suit no. 330/15
Case No. 14268/16

Sh. Baljeet Singh
S/o Late Shri Hira Ram
R/o Village & P.O Nangal Dewat
New Delhi-110037                                          ..... Plaintiff
                            Versus
1.

Sh. Iqbal Singh Property dealer S/o Karan Singh C/o Shakuntala Property Dealer at Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi.

2. International Airport Authority of India through its Chairman Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan Safdarjung Airport New Delhi

3. Delhi Development Authority Through its Vice-Chairman Vikas Bhawan, INA New Delhi.

4. Nodal Officer/LAC/ADM (South West) DC Office Complex Kapashera, New Delhi-37 .........Defendants CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 1/52 Date of Institution of Suit : 10.07.2015 Date on which reserved for judgment : 30.09.2019 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.10.2019 SUIT FOR DECLARATION, MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS This is the judgment of case titled as Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh & Ors. There are four defendants in the present case. Defendant no.1 is Sh. Iqbal Singh, defendant no.2 is International Airport Authority of India, defendant no.3 is Delhi Development Authority and defendant no.4 is Nodal Officer/LAC/ADM (South West). This is a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction. Relevant facts as stated in the plaint are as follows:-

1 That father of the plaintiff Sh. Heera Ram and his brother Sh.

Ghasi Ram were co-owners and in possession of residential plot bearing khasra no. 1258/2 (1/17) which is situated within extended Lal Dora Abadi area of the village. Both the co-owners had mutually partitioned the plot in equal shares and both the brothers were in possession of their respective shares measuring 932 sq. yards. After the death of the father of the plaintiff in the year 1968, abovesaid plot devolved upon his legal heirs in equal shares as under:-

1. Smt. Maina Devi - widow

2. Sh. Mange Ram (since deceased) - Son CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 2/52

3. Sh. Baljeet Singh- son (plaintiff)

4. Smt. Laxmi Devi Wife of Sh. Umed Singh Dagar - daughter

5. Smt. Santosh Devi wife of Sh. Ishwar Singh - daughter

6. Smt. Kamla wife of Sh. Jagdish - daughter.

2 That all the daughters of above Sh. Heera Ram are married and have relinquished their share in favour of plaintiff by making statements in the court of Sh. H.S Sharma, ADJ in suit for partition titled as Baljeet Singh vs. Kamla Devi and others filed by the plaintiff. Smt. Maina Devi expired on 18.05.1998 leaving behind a Will dated 04.04.1996 in favour of plaintiff as his legal heir and Sh. Mange Ram also expired on 18.11.2004 leaving behind defendant no. 2 to defendant no.5 as his legal heirs. That uncle of the plaintiffs Sh. Ghasi Ram sold the plot fraudulently without disclosing the same to the father of the plaintiff. It was later on revealed that he had sold his share to one Smt. Sita Singh. When Smt. Sita Singh and her associates tried to take forcible possession of the entire plot, mother and brother of the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction vide suit no. 246/89 titled as Ghasi Ram vs Sheesh Pal & Ors. The above case was compromised between the parties and accordingly the application to this effect was moved and the suit was decided as compromised on 30.01.1990. As per the compromise, plaintiffs, late Mange Ram and their uncle Sh. Ghasi Ram handed over the possession of half of the total plot to one Sh. Anoop Singh (attorney of Sita Singh) which was CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 3/52 sold by uncle of the plaintiff to Sita Singh. After the abovementioned compromise, plaintiff and the legal heirs of brother of plaintiff became the co-owners of the half of the abovesaid plot. The other half share previously owned by Sh. Ghasi Ram was sold to Smt. Sita Singh. In this way, Smt. Sita Singh was the owner of half share in respect of the suit property. Defendant no.1 with a malafide intention in order to usurp the share of the plaintiff and in collusion with the defendants got his name recorded in the revenue records by misrepresentation. Smt. Sita Singh has no right, title or interest in respect of the entire suit property since she was only owner to the extent of half share of the suit property and as such, she could not have executed a Will in favour of defendant no.1 with regard to the entire suit property. It is not out of place to mention that suit property is an ancestral property inherited by the plaintiff. The pedigree chart is given in para 8 which is as under:-

Bakhtawar Singh _________________________________________ Hira Ram Ghasi Ram He sold his share to Smt. Sita Singh ________________ Sons Daughter Baljeet Singh Smt. Laxmi Devi Mange Ram Smt. Santosh Devi Smt. Kamla Devi CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 4/52 3 Smt. Sita Singh was neither the legal heir nor in the pedigree table of Sh. Bakhtawar Singh, therefore, she could not have inherited the entire suit property. Subsequently defendant no.1 cannot claim the entire suit property on the strength of alleged Will. The name of Smt. Sita Singh was wrongly recorded in respect of share of the plaintiff which was subsequently mutated in the name of defendant no.1 in an illegal and unlawful manner.

Infact half share of the property bearing khasra no. 1258/2 belongs to father of the plaintiff and the other half share which was owned by uncle of the plaintiff was sold by him to one Smt. Sita Singh. As such, she was the owner upto the extent of half share only. Likewise, defendant no.1 also has right only in the half share as he has stepped into the shoes of Smt. Sita Singh. The compromise also reflected the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of half share of the property bearing khasra no. 1258/2. The entire land situated in the old Lal Dora Abadi area as well as in extended lal dora was notified under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of extension of Palam Airport, New Delhi. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 28.04.1972. Since it was a special case of acquisition of land situated in old lal dora abadi area, for which there was no revenue record available, because the abadi deh was recorded as gaon sabha land in the revenue records after implementation of Delhi Land Reforms Act, the acquisition authority/beneficiary/defendants decided to carry out a survey for the purpose of ascertaining the ownership and occupation of the villagers. As such, a survey was conducted and a list or index was prepared on the basis CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 5/52 of actual occupation of the villagers. Award no. 16/1986-87 was passed by LAC pursuant to the notification under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of expansion of Palam Airport. Since the above acquisition was a special case of acquisition of entire abadi area of village, as such the defendant/government made a policy to rehabilitate the village inhabitants at some other place. For this purpose, land was acquired in village Milakpur Kohi (Rangpuri) Delhi. A list of village inhabitants entitled for the allotment of plot for rehabilitation was prepared by the defendants on the basis of survey of 1972 in respect of old abadi area and also in respect of land in extended lal dora. Naksha Muntezamin was prepared regarding the plots in the old lal dora area while the list was based on the revenue record. Since defendant no.1 got his name entered into the record fraudulently and by misrepresentation in the list of entitled persons, the plaintiff alongwith LRs of his brother are entitled to get the allotment of rehabilitation plot in lieu of property i.e. residential plot bearing khasra no. 1258/2 admeasuring 932 sq. yds. situated in extended lal dora abadi area of the village.

4 When plaintiff received a notice from defendant no. 2 & 3 regarding allotment and possession of the plot allotted to his mother, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 2 to 4 have allotted a plot admeasuring 160 sq. meters instead of plot under category 2 which comes to about 600 sq. meters. The plaintiff visited the office of defendant no. 2 to 4 regarding correction of his entitlement. Plaintiff was under a bonafide CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 6/52 impression that he would get allotment of equal size plot to that of the plot which is in his possession. As such, he could not initiate or file any objection or application before any forum. When the plaintiff received a copy of letter dated 09.11.2006 from defendant no.6 (as per plaint, there is no defendant number 6), only then, the plaintiff came to know about the size of the plot which is allotted to his mother. Till that date the plaintiff was unaware about the size of the plot. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants are going to hand over the possession of the plot no. 13 admeasuring 650 sq. meters to defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 is also in hurry to get possession of the said plot as he has knowledge that he is not entitled to the said plot. In case defendant no.2 hands over the possession of the plot no. 13 to defendant no.1, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury which would result in multiplicity of cases. As per the policy made by the government and the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble High Court, plaintiff is entitled to get a rehabilitation plot under category II in respect of the property under his possession. Plaintiff came to know that defendants have fixed 09.12.2006 for taking possession of the abadi area. Defendant no. 2 to 4 have no authority to dispossess the plaintiff from his house without allotment of rehabilitation plot to him as per policy of the government and the guidelines of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In case the defendants succeed in dispossessing the plaintiff without allotment of rehabilitation plot to him, he would suffer irreparable loss. Defendant no.1 has no right to take possession and utilize the plot. The plaintiff has claimed the relief of permanent CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 7/52 injunction against defendant no.3. Cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant on 10.11.2006 when plaintiff received letter from defendant no.3. Thereafter, plaintiff came to know about the size of the plot being allotted to their mother by defendant no. 2 to 4. 5 That the suit is valued for the purpose of court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction, for the relief of declaration it is assessed at Rs.200/- and for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction is at Rs.130/-. It is therefore prayed that the court be pleased;

1 to pass a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff thereby declaring the Will allegedly executed by Smt. Sita Singh be declared null and void 2 pass a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for independent and separate rehabilitation plot of category number II in lieu of his land. 3 pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no. 2 to 4 thereby directing them to cancel the allotment of plot no. 13 in favour of defendant no.1.

4 pass decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1 thereby restraining them, his agents, servants etc. from utilizing or interfering in any manner whatsoever in plot no. 13 which is allotted in lieu of plot bearing khasra no. 1258/2 (1-17).

Written statement of defendant no.1:-

CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 8/52 Preliminary objections:

6 That the present suit is an abuse of process of court as it is based on false and frivolous allegations which are false even to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. Plaintiff has no legal character or any kind of right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to any discretionary relief of declaration as sought in the suit. Defendant no.1 is the legal, true and recorded owner of the suit property in all the government records including revenue authority and is shown as legal owner of the suit property. Plaintiff has not come to this court with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing true and material facts. Plaintiff has wrongly mentioned his father's name as Sh. Heera Ram. His father's name is Sh. Heera Singh as mentioned in all the government records. Predecessor of the plaintiff namely Sh. Ghasi Ram and Sh. Heera Singh, both sons of Sh. Bakhtawar Singh jointly sold the suit land bearing khasra no. 1258/2 admeasuring 1 bigha 17 biswa of village Nangal Dewat to Smt. Sita Singh wife of Sh. B.T Singh by way of registered sale deed dated 22.04.1964 which is duly registered being document no. 2937. On the basis of said registered sale deed, land measuring 1 bigha 17 biswa was mutated in favour of Smt. Sita Singh on 15.10.1965 in the revenue record. The said sale deed and mutation order dated 15.10.1965 was never challenged by Sh. Heera Singh and Sh.

Ghasi Ram in their life time. Smt. Sita Singh wife of Sh. B.T Singh executed a Will dated 15.11.1990 in favour of defendant no.1. By virtue of CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 9/52 the said Will, the suit property has been bequeathed in favour of defendant no.1. Smt. Sita Singh wife of Sh. B.T Singh died on 17.08.2001. After the death of Smt. Sita Singh, defendant no.1 became the absolute owner of suit property by virtue of the said Will. In the revenue record, the entire suit land has been mutated in favour of defendant no.1 in case no. M-449/2002-03 dated 25.08.2003. Defendant no.1 is the absolute lawful and recorded owner of the suit property and is in actual physical possession of the suit property. After execution and registration of the sale deed dated 22.04.1964 which was registered on 29.04.1964, the predecessor of the plaintiff had already sold all their rights, title and interest in the suit property in favour of Smt. Sita Singh and thereafter, there remained no right, title or interest over the suit property. Plaintiff alleged himself as LR of late Heera Singh but both Heera Singh and his brother Ghasi Ram had sold the suit property to Smt. Sita Singh. There is no question to inherit the suit property by the plaintiff or any other legal heir of Sh. Heera Singh. Till date, sale deed dated 22.04.1964 registered on 29.04.1964 and the mutation order dated 15.10.1965 in favour of Smt. Sita Singh have never been challenged by any person in any manner. These facts have been concealed by the plaintiff in his plaint and on this ground alone, suit of the plaintiff ought to be dismissed.

7 Present suit of the plaintiff is also barred under provisions of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 because the suit land is governed by the said provisions. Admittedly, plaintiff is not a recorded CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 10/52 Bhumidar of the suit land. It is settled law that a person who is not a Bhumidar has no right to file suit for injunction before the Civil Court against the recorded Bhumidar therefore, present suit ought to be dismissed. Defendant no.1 is the lawful and recorded owner/Bhumidar of the suit property and plaintiff has no locus standi or right to seek any declaration or injunction against defendant no.1. Therefore, present suit is not maintainable.

8 That plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit for challenging the legality and validity of Will dated 15.11.1990 executed by late Smt. Sita Singh who was the recorded owner of the entire land and who bequeathed the same in favour of defendant no.1. Plaintiff is neither blood relation of Smt. Sita Singh nor relative of hers in any manner which may confer any right in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the estate left behind by late Smt. Sita Singh. The land has already been acquired for purpose of extension of airport under the Land Acquisition Act 1984 and this court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. After acquisition, neither the revenue court nor Civil Court has any jurisdiction over the subject matter. Hence, the present suit is not maintainable. Plaintiff never challenged the survey report carried out in 1972 before the appropriate forum and in the absence of any such challenge the said report became final qua the plaintiff. The eligibility of the plaintiff qua the alternative plot cannot be decided in the present suit as the Hon'ble High Court has specifically ordered through order CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 11/52 dated 28.04.2004 passed in the writ petition WP(Civil) 481/1982 in which it had granted leave and liberty to the parties to file necessary documents within 15 days from the order of Hon'ble High Court with Tehsildar and the Tehsildar was to decide the issue of mutation on the basis of documents on record. Operative part of order dated 28.04.2004 is reproduced as under:

"leave and liberty is granted to the parties to file the necessary documents within 15 days from today with the Tehsildar, failing which no liberty shall be granted to the parties and Tehsildar will decide the issue on the basis of the documents on record".

9 The plaintiff or any other legal heirs of late Sh. Heera Singh did not file any objection before the Tehsildar in pursuance of the above order. Vide order dated 28.04.2004, Hon'ble High Court appointed Sh. S.S Kanawat, ADM as Nodal Officer to decide the issue of eligibility of a particular category of a person. Relevant extract of said order is as under:

" Mr. K.K Kanawat, ADM is appointed as Nodal Officer for the said purpose. Airport authority of India will give the relevant date to him and he will prepare list of eligible candidates after considering the objection of different parties. If there is an issue of eligibility of a particular category of persons, list should be prepared and eligibility will be considered by the Court." The plaintiff or any other legal heir of late Heera Singh did not file any objection before Sh. S.S Kanawat, Nodal officer if they had any grievance as is alleged in the plaint. The Hon'ble High Court after hearing CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 12/52 the parties in writ petition Civil 481/1982 passed the order dated 18.05.2005 and settled the guidelines/criteria for the allotment of the alternative plots and also appointed Sh. A.K Singh, ADM as Nodal Officer and directed the villagers to approach the Nodal Officer within 15 days from the date of order of Hon'ble high Court for inclusion of their name as an eligible alternative allottee for determination of the size of plot based on the said criteria. Operative part of said order dated 18.05.2005 is as under:

"In view of guidelines and criteria as settled for the alternative allotment, objector/applicant, if they fall within the said guidelines may approach the Nodal Officer for inclusion of their name as an eligible alternative allottee or for determination of the size of plot based on the above criteria. The said letters, requests or applications may be filed before Nodal Officer within 15 days from today stating their entitlement in terms of guidelines. In case the Nodal Officer rejected any application for mutation or for allotment, it would be for the concerned parties to seek substantive relief in appropriate proceedings and not by any CMs in this disposal of writ petition".

10 It is clear from the order dated 18.05.2005 that Hon'ble High Court had granted 15 days' time to the plaintiff to file letters, requests or application before the Nodal Officer and in case Nodal Officer rejected any application for allotment, it was open for the concerned party to seek substantive relief in appropriate proceedings. Plaintiff or any other legal heir CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 13/52 of late Heera Singh have not approached the Nodal Officer for adjudication of their alleged claim if they had any grievance and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief from this court. That name of Smt. Sita Singh was mutated in the revenue record on 18.10.1965 in respect of land bearing khasra no. 1258/2 admeasuring 1 bigha 17 biswa on the basis of sale deed executed by the predecessor of the plaintiff namely Sh. Heera Singh and Sh. Ghasi Ram. After 18.10.1965 to 25.08.2003 Smt. Sita Sigh was shown as the recorded owner of the suit land in revenue record. After 25.08.2003, defendant no.1 is shown as recorded owner of the suit land. In Naksha Muntazamin, name of Smt. Sita Singh is shown in respect of the entire land admeasuring 1 bigh 17 biswa of khasra no. 1258/2. The LAC also assessed compensation of the entire land in the name of Smt. Sita Singh. The plaintiff has not filed any document alongwith the suit which show that after 18.10.1965, either name of his predecessor or name of the plaintiff is shown in the record maintained by the authority. Till date, no person has challenged the sale deed executed in favour of Smt. Sita Singh and mutation order dated 18.10.1965. The allegations levelled in the plaint are based on assumptions and presumptions which do not give any right or cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that under the garb of the present suit, the plaintiff is also challenging the mutation order by which the land in question was mutated in favour of Smt. Sita Singh and also challenged the mutation order dated 25.08.2003 by which the land in question was mutated in favour of defendant no.1 but this court has no jurisdiction to CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 14/52 decide this issue on the ground of subject matter as well as limitation. 11 In the present suit, the plaintiff has not challenged the sale deed dated 22.04.1964 registered on 29.04.1964 executed and got registered by the predecessor of the plaintiff in favour of Smt. Sita Singh. Without challenging the sale deed dated 22.04.1964, plaintiff cannot challenge the Will executed by Smt. Sita Singh in favour of defendant no.1. The suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. The value of suit property is more than Rs.50 lacs and plaintiff has illegally and arbitrarily valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees at Rs.200/- only. Therefore, suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (c) CPC.

12 Suit of the plaintiff is also hit by provisions of Section 41 H, I and J of Specific Relief Act. It is relevant to point out that before filing of the present suit, legal heir of late Sh. Mange Ram, son of Late Heera Singh i.e. Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Sh. Mange Ram, Pradeep and Mahipal Singh sons of late Sh. Mange Ram also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant no.1 whereby they sought the declaration against the Will dated 15.11.1990 and mutation order dated 25.08.2003 and said suit was registered as 133/2005 titled as Kamla Devi & Ors. Vs Iqbal Singh & Ors. In the said suit, defendant no.1 has also filed WS and disclosed all the correct facts and Smt. Kamla Devi and others after receiving copy of WS filed by defendant no.1 chose not to appear before the Court and suit was CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 15/52 dismissed on 27.02.2006. Thereafter, they have not filed any application for restoration of the said suit. The legal heirs of late Mange Ram son of Late Heera Singh i.e. Smt. Kamla Devi, Pradeep and Mahipal Singh also filed an appeal bearing no. 28/05 before the Deputy commissioner where they challenged the mutation order dated 25.08.2003. The said appeal was also dismissed on 31.08.2005. After dismissal of the said appeal, they have not challenged the order dated 31.08.2005 before any authority or court. Therefore, the mutation order dated 31.08.2005 has become final and plaintiff has no right to challenge the same. 13 In the present case, award was passed in 1987 and LAC also assessed the compensation in the name of Smt. Sita Singh. Plaintiff never challenged the said award. Award has now become final and same cannot be challenged before this court. Plaintiff never filed any claim for payment of compensation before LAC or before any court. Hon'ble High Court also laid down certain guidelines for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land and the plaintiff or his LRs or LR of plaintiff brothers do not fall within the said category. Suit of the plaintiff is also barred by limitation. In the garb of the present suit, plaintiff is also challenging the sale deed which was executed by his predecessors namely Sh. Heera Singh and Sh. Ghasi Ram in 1964 and on the basis of said sale deed, mutation of entire suit property was recorded in the name of Smt. Sita Singh and said facts are within the knowledge of the plaintiff since beginning. After expiry of 42 years, plaintiff cannot challenge the sale deed.

CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 16/52 Reply on merits:-

14 That father of the plaintiff Sh. Heera Singh and his brother Sh. Ghasi Ram were co-owners of land bearing khasra no. 1258/2 of village Nangal Dewat and they jointly sold the same to Smt. Sita Singh vide sale deed dated 22.04.1964 registered on 29.04.1964 and same was also mutated in her name in the revenue record on the basis of the said sale deed vide order dated 18.10.1965. It is denied that Sh. Heera Singh and Sh. Ghasi Ram had mutually partitioned the said plot in equal share and both the brothers were in possession of their respective shares admeasuring 932 sq. yards. After 22.04.1964, late Heera Singh and Sh. Ghasi Ram or their successor are not in possession of any part of land bearing khasra no. 1258/2. The said land is in possession of defendant no.1. It is denied that after death of father of plaintiff in 1968, suit plot had devolved upon his legal heirs in equal shares. On 22.04.1964, father of the plaintiff had already sold his share in the said plot to Smt. Sita Singh therefore, there is no question that the plot devolved upon the LRs of late Sh. Heera Singh. It is submitted that the alleged Will dated 04.04.1996 is not regarding the suit plot bearing khasra no. 1258/2. The alleged Will is also a suspicious Will because in the said Will, description of properties is not clear and complete in any manner. It is denied that uncle of plaintiff Sh. Ghasi Ram sold the plot in question fraudulently without disclosing to the father of the plaintiff or that he did not transfer the possession of his share to the CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 17/52 predecessor in interest of the defendant no 1 because the father of the plaintiff was in possession of half of the plot. The suit no. 246/1989 titled as Ghasi Ram vs Sheesh Pal was a collusive suit. Smt. Sita Singh never executed any general power of attorney either in favour of Sh. Anup Singh or in favour of Sheesh Pal. In the said suit, Smt. Sita Singh was alleged to be represented by Sh. Anup Singh on the basis of a forged and fabricated GPA. There was no alleged compromise as was alleged to have been arrived between Sh. Ghasi Ram, Smt. Maina Devi and Sh. Mange Ram on one side and Smt. Sita Singh on the other side at any point of time. In the appeal no. 28/05 titled as Kamla & Ors. Vs Iqbal Singh which was pending before the Deputy commissioner, South-West, Sh. Anup Singh also filed his WS and admitted that Smt. Sita Singh purchased entire land admeasuring 1 bigha 17 biswa of khasra no. 1258/2 and same was also mutated in favour of Smt. Sita Singh. It is denied that the plaintiff, late Sh. Mange Ram and their uncle Sh. Ghasi Ram handed over only half of the total plot to Sh. Anup Singh. When Smt. Sita Singh was in actual physical possession of the entire plot measuring 1 bigha 17 biswa of khasra no. 1258/2 since 22.04.1964, there was no question of handing over of possession of only half of the total plot to Sh. Anup Singh vide compromise deed dated 30.01.1990. It is denied that only Sh. Ghasi Ram sold his share to Smt. Sita Singh. Even if it is presumed but not admitted for the sake of arguments by answering defendant that there was an alleged compromise between the plaintiff and LRs of plaintiff brother and the alleged attorney of Smt. Sita Singh, even CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 18/52 then the same cannot give any right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff and the LRs of plaintiff brother because the said compromise is not registered before the concerned Sub Registrar and there was no decree which has been passed by any court in this regard. It is submitted that for transferring the right, title and interest of the property of value more than Rs.100/-, a compromise must be registered before the concerned Sub- Registrar and in the absence of any such registration, the alleged compromise cannot give any right, title and interest in favour of plaintiff and the LRs of brother of the plaintiff.

15 It is denied that name of Smt. Sita Singh was wrongly recorded in respect of alleged share of the plaintiff or that the mutation in favour of defendant no.1 is illegal. It is denied that defendant no.1 has right only in half share of the suit property. That in all the records for the allotment of rehabilitation, name of Smt. Sita Singh and defendant no.1 is shown as entitled persons for the allotment of alternative plots in lieu of the land bearing khasra no. 1258/2 (1-17) of village Nangal Dewat. It is denied that defendant no.1 has got the name entered into the records fraudulently and by misrepresentation. Smt. Sita Singh was entitled for allotment of rehabilitation plot in lieu of property bearing khasra no. 1258/2 (1-17) and she during her life time bequeathed the same in favour of defendant no.1. Therefore, defendant no.1 is the only person eligible for the allotment of alternative plot in lieu of land bearing khasra no. 1258/2 (1-17) of village Nangal Dewat. The plaintiff is fully aware that his predecessors had already CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 19/52 sold the suit property to Smt. Sita Singh in 1964 and therefore plaintiff is not entitled for any allotment in lieu of the suit property. It is for this reason that he could not initiate or file any objection or application before any forum till date. It is denied that the plaintiff came to know about the size of the plot which was allotted to his mother only when he received a copy of letter dated 09.11.2006 from defendant no.6. There is no defendant no.6 in the memo of parties and hence, the pleading of plaintiff is totally vague. It is denied that defendant no. 2, 3 & 4 have wrongly and unlawfully merely on the basis of wrong entries in the revenue records in lieu of the suit plot allotted the same to defendant no.1. It is denied that plaintiff and his brother are in possession of suit property. It is submitted that no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for filing the present suit and suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is therefore prayed that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs. WS on behalf of defendant no.2:-

Preliminary objections:-

16 That no statutory notice as provided under Section 80 CPC has been served upon the answering defendant with respect to the present suit. The plaintiffs are falsely praying for exemption from service of notice on false pretext that if they waited for expiry of statutory period then the purpose of the suit would have been frustrated. Serving of notice upon the state is a statutory requirement which cannot be exempted with mere apprehensions. There is no urgency in the present suit. On the contrary, the CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 20/52 suit is ex-facie vexatious, malafide and abuse of process of law and should be dismissed. As per the order passed by Hon'ble High court of Delhi, it was agreed that no claim for allotment of alternative plot based on sale, mortgage, gift, relinquishment, power of attorney or Will after 28.04.1972 would be accepted and entertained by the Nodal officer. In the present case, the Will was made on 04.04.1996 in favour of plaintiff therefore, this Will would not be accepted and entertained by the Nodal Officer.

Reply on merits:-

17 The fact of acquisition as is alleged in the pleadings is not denied. Since no individual revenue records were available in respect of the land situated in original lal dora, therefore, a survey was conducted by the relevant revenue authorities of the Delhi Government. The survey report was examined in detail. It was noticed that names of different family members appeared at more than one place. Allotment of plots on the basis of names in the survey could have resulted in the allotment of several plots to one family. Therefore, the nodal officer appointed by Hon'ble High Court divided the criteria where land holding in lal dora/extended abadi area of one family were clubbed with the land holding in the extended abadi.

Entries in the revenue records of the extended abadi were therefore given importance over the survey conducted during modification in 1972-73. Sh. S.S Kanawat was appointed as Nodal Officer by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to prepare the consolidated list of entitled persons CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 21/52 for the purpose of allotment of alternative plot. The said list was prepared by Sh. S.S Kanawat after examining all available records to determine actual ownership of land. Since some disputes arose regarding allotment of land, therefore, Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18.05.2005 issued certain guidelines for final adjudication of those disputes. As per the said guidelines, no claim for allotment of alternative plot based on sale, mortgage, gift, relinquishment, power of attorney or Will after 28.04.1972 was to be accepted and entertained by the Nodal Officer. In the present case, the Will was made on 04.04.1996 in favour of plaintiff and therefore the same cannot form the basis of present claims. It is denied that plaintiff came to know about size of the land allotted to him for the first time on 09.11.2006. Plaintiff has been allotted an alternative plot based on the same mechanism devised by the Nodal officer appointed by Hon'ble High Court. Land Acquisition Act provides for compensation of land acquired by the state. However, there is no inherent right as such for allotments of alternative plots under the Land Acquisition Act. However, in view of the fact that residential land of village Nangal Dewat was acquired, government considered allotment of plots in addition to normal benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. Demand for individual plots cannot be made as a matter of right. By mere reading of the plaint, it is clear that no cause of action arose against defendant no.2, therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC qua the answering defendant.

CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 22/52 WS of defendant no.3/DDA:-

18 That suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 53B of Delhi Development Act 1957 which is mandatory in nature before filing of any suit against DDA. Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit against answering defendant as allotment of land to the evictees of village Nangal Dewat was entrusted to answering defendant as the deposit work of airport authority of India. The answering defendant was directed by Hon'ble High Court to develop the plots and conduct draw for allotment to eligible evictees of village Nangal Dewat. The list of eligible evictees was prepared by Airport Authority of India/LAC and answering defendant was bound to allot the land on the basis of said list. Accordingly, a list of 308 evictees was given by LAC/ADM, South West before Hon'ble High Court and answering defendant held the draw on 06.10.2005 on the basis of the same and allotment letters were issued to 164 allottes. The allotment letters of 139 cases were withheld by LAC due to fresh dispute in the earlier list of 308 evictees. Allotment letter of 5 cases were withheld for want of certain clarification from Airport Authority of India/LAC.

WS of defendant no.4:-

19 Suit of the plaintiff is highly belated. Moreover, the plaintiff has not approached the concerned department for correction of entries in his name in the revenue records even though liberty was afforded for this purpose by the Hon'ble High Court. Hon'ble High Court vide its order CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 23/52 dated 28.04.2004 had granted leave and liberty to parties to file necessary documents within 15 days from the date of order with Tehsildar and Tehsildar was to decide the issue of mutation on the basis of documents on record. Operative part of order dated 28.04.2004 is reproduced as under:-

"Leave and liberty is granted to the parties to file necessary documents within 15 days from today with the Tehsildar failing which no liberty shall be granted to the parties and the Tehsildar will decide the issue on the basis of documents on record".

20 Admittedly, the plaintiff has not approached the Tehsildar for redressal of his grievance. Therefore, present suit is not maintainable before this court. In Writ Petition Civil No. 481/1982 titled as Daryao Singh vs Union of India, Hon'ble High Court after hearing the parties was pleased to direct vide detailed order dated 25.05.2005 the applicants to approach to Nodal officer within period of 15 days from the date of order of Hon'ble High Court for inclusion of their names as an eligible alternative allottee or for determination of size of the plot and the Nodal Officer would take decisions as per the guidelines and criteria settled. Operative part of order dated 18.05.2005 is reproduced as under:-

"11. In view of the guidelines and criteria as settled for alternative allotment, the applicants/objectors if they fall within the said guidelines or criteria may approach the Nodal Officer for inclusion of their names as an CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 24/52 eligible alternative allotee and for determination of size of the plots based on above criteria. Said letters, requests or applications may be filed before Nodal Officer within 15 days from today stating clearly their entitlement in terms of the guidelines/criteria. In case the Nodal officer rejected any application for mutation or application for allotment, it would be open for the concerned party to seek substantive relief in appropriate proceedings and not by any CMs in this disposed of writ petition. Registry is directed not to entertain any such application against the decision of the Nodal Officer and/or either for impleadment or intervention or directions on the above subject matter in this writ petition."

21 It was open to the plaintiff to approach the answering defendants for their grievances. But the plaintiff did not approach the Nodal officer pursuant to the directions dated 18.05.2005. Instead the plaintiff has filed the present suit in violation of directions of Hon'ble High Court as the High Court had granted liberty to the applicants to avail any remedy whatsoever only after the decision of the Nodal Officer. Present suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 22 In the explanatory note of schedule 1 of order dated 18.05.2005 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ petition no. 481/1981, it is clearly mentioned that the pendency of a claim before the Nodal officer would not enable any party to assert its right to continue with the occupation/possession of the acquired land. It is clear from the perusal of order dated 18.05.2005 passed by Hon'ble High Court of CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 25/52 Delhi that in case any suit filed during the pendency of the claim before the Nodal officer, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has specifically prohibited any party to assert its right to continue with the occupation/possession of the acquired land.

23 The index of survey does not contain entry of name of plaintiff. This is an extended abadi land and survey was conducted only in regard to structures in the village for assessment of compensation. The market value of the land and the market value of structures have been assessed separately. The claim for structures does not entitle a person to claim the land beneath the structure. Compensation for the said structures has been assessed irrespective of the fact whether the land is under ownership of claimant or not. Name of the plaintiffs does not appear in the revenue record of extended abadi land therefore, he is not entitled to seek allotment of alternative plots in his name. Allotment of plots has already been finalized and this issue cannot be reopened at this stage. In case, the application of the petitioner is entertained, whole planning of alternative plots will have to be made afresh, thereby delaying the entire process of relocation of village Nangal Dewat. 24 The plaintiff has not approached the concerned department for correction of entries in his name in revenue records even though the liberty was afforded by Hon'ble High Court. The Tehsilsar was to decide the issue of mutation on the basis of documents on record. All the allegations and pleas have been concocted with a view to keep the claim of allotment of alternative plot as well as acquisition proceedings under litigation. The CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 26/52 plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the order passed by Nodal officer on any of the pleas and grounds raised in the petition. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. It is therefore prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.

Replication of plaintiff to WS of defendant no.1:-

25 After the death of father of the plaintiff, Smt. Sita Singh and her associates tried to take forcible possession of the share of the plaintiff and the mother of the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against Sheesh Pal, Smt. Sita Singh and others. Said suit was compromised by Smt. Sita Singh through her attorney Sh. Anup Singh on behalf of defendant and by Smt. Maina Devi (mother of the plaintiff since deceased) through her attorney Sh. Mange Ram on behalf of plaintiffs. In terms of said compromise, it was decided that Smt. Sita Singh shall be owner of half of the suit property which belongs to Sh. Ghasi Ram and Smt. Maina Devi, mother of the plaintiff shall remain in possession of the other half belonging to her late husband Sh. Heera Singh. Late Heera Singh was not aware of the sale deed allegedly executed by late Ghasi Ram and therefore, there was no occasion for him to challenge the sale deed. It is submitted that power to declare a document as null and void is vested in Civil Court. It is denied that the eligibility of the plaintiff for alternative plot cannot be decided in the present suit. It is submitted that mutation does not confer any right to any person. It is further submitted that Smt. Sita Singh was not the absolute CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 27/52 owner of plot bearing khasra no. 1258/2 (1-17) situated in Village Nangal Dewat. Plaintiff has challenged the Will allegedly executed by Smt. Sita Singh and reserves the right to challenge the sale deed. Legal heirs of late Mange Ram might have filed the suit but the same was in connivance with defendant no.1. As a matter of fact, relation of the plaintiff with late Mange Ram was not cordial and he wanted to deprive the plaintiff from his legitimate right in suit property.

26 It is admitted that there may be some typographical error while mentioning dependant number 5 in the will dated 4 th April 1996 executed by the mother of the plaintiff. In para 5 of the replication on merits filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendant number 1, the plaintiff strangely admitted that father of the plaintiff late Shri Hira ram had sold his share by a registered sale deed to Smt. Sita Singh, but it also appears to be a typographical error inadvertently made by the plaintiff even though the same has not be rectified by the plaintiff throughout the trial. It is submitted that so far as the question of registration of the compromise deed is concerned, the same may be an irregularity but not illegality. It is submitted that by way of the said compromise Smt. Sita Singh did not transfer any right in favour of the mother of the plaintiff. Rather, she apprehended legal action, therefore, she entered into a compromise deed with the mother of the plaintiff. In the rest of the replication, the plaintiff has merely repeated the facts of his plaint again and again and denied the averments made by the defendants and their respective written statements. In para number 16 of the CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 28/52 replication on merits to the WS of defendant number 1, plaintiff made an averment that he was a minor at the time his predecessors in interest sold the suit property to Smt. Sita Singh in the year 1964. He submitted that since he was a minor at that time, therefore he was not aware of the factum of sale. Replication of the plaintiff to the written statement filed by defendant number 2.

27 In this replication, the plaintiff has again denied all the averments of fact stated by defendant number 2 in its written statement and has reiterated the contents of his plaint qua defendant number 2 to be correct.

28 In this replication, in para number 13-14, the plaintiff has himself submitted that the name of the plaintiff has not been mentioned in the list prepared during the survey conducted in the year 1972-73. 29 All the pleadings of this case have already been discussed above. On 13 October 2015, learned predecessor of this court framed the following issue, "whether the civil court has jurisdiction to try this matter in this court"? The learned predecessor decided that the above issue shall also take care of the point raised by defendant number 1 in the application under order 7 rule 11 CPC. Thereafter, through order dated 11 January 2016, the submissions upon the preliminary issue were considered by the court and after citing the decision of the Honourable High Court of Delhi in the case of "Airport authority of India versus Karan Singh and others reported as 2007 CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 29/52 (volume 6) , AD Delhi, it was specifically held that any challenge to the order of the nodal officer/claim/representation has to be made before the Honourable Delhi High Court and in para number 41 of the same judgement, Honourable High Court of Delhi had been very categorical in observing that in case of any dispute with regard to the title, based upon the will, the competent court i.e. civil court would have the jurisdiction to try the same and till such time the civil court decides the rights of the parties on the basis of the will, the allotment by the nodal officer is required to be kept in abeyance. Thereafter, by way of a reasoned order, the learned predecessor, held that under no circumstances can the defendants object on the ground of jurisdiction since the civil court, i.e. this court will have the jurisdiction to try the suit to the limited extent of determination of title of the parties based upon the alleged impugned will, which jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted in terms of the observations made by the Honourable Delhi High Court in para number 41 of the judgement of the case of Airport Authority of India cited above.

30 Thereafter, the aggrieved party i.e. defendant number 1 went in revision before the Honourable High Court itself, but the same was also dismissed by the Honourable High Court again citing the judgement of Honourable High Court itself titled as Airport Authority of India versus Karan Singh and others 2007 volume 6 AD, Delhi. The Honourable High Court, categorically held through its order dated 2nd may 2016 that the civil court would have the jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised by the CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 30/52 plaintiff. The said revision petition of defendant number 1 was dismissed with costs by Honourable High Court.

31 Thereafter following issues were framed by the learned predecessor on 29 March 2016.

1 Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation, the sale deed having been executed in the year 1964? OPD-1 2 Whether the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the property in question as it was sold in the year 1964 to Smt. Sita Singh, the predecessor in interest of defendant number 1 which fact has been concealed from the court and the suit is hit by provisions of section 34 of the specific relief act? OPD 1 3 Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by provisions of section 185 of Delhi land reforms act? OPD 1 4 Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction in view of the valuation by the DDA at the rate of 1.2 lakhs per square metre and the total value of the suit property being more than being 20 course? OPD 1 and 3 5 Whether the suit is bad for want of service of mandatory notice under section 80 CPC? OPD 2 6 Whether the suit is bad for want of mandatory notice under section 53-B of DD act? OPD 3 7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as asked for in the plaint? OPP CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 31/52 8 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as asked for in the plaint? OPP 9 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction as asked for in the plaint? OPP 10 Relief Following evidence was led by the parties to the suit. 32 Plaintiff examined himself by way of evidence affidavit exhibit PW 1/A. In his evidence affidavit he deposed on exactly the same lines as that of his plaint and no new material fact was added or subtracted therefrom. He relied upon the following documents:-

1 Copy of khatauni for the year 1964-65 and its Hindi Translation are Mark A & Mark B (later on defendant did not dispute the said documents and the same were exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2). 2 Copy of compromise recorded in Suit no. 246/1989 Mark C. 3 Copy of order of said suit Mark D 4 Copy of assignment deed dated 02.05.2001 Mark E 5 Copy of list of entitled persons Mark F (upon production of original list, the same was exhibited as Ex.PW1/3) 6 Portion Mark A to A-1 in para 9, portion B to B-1 in para 14, portion C to C-1 in para 17 and portion D to D-1 in para 18 of affidavit Ex.PW1/A are beyond pleadings.

33 During his cross examination by counsel for defendant number 3 DDA he deposed as follows. It is correct that a list was prepared by the CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 32/52 Airport Authority of India and the same was given to the DDA for allotment of the plots. It is correct that the DDA made allotment of the plots as per the list supplied by Airport Authority of India. It is correct that DDA allotted plots only after a draw held on 6 th October 2005 on the basis of the policy and the list of eligible evictees supplied by the Airport Authority of India and Land Acquisition Collector. During his cross examination he deposed that he has not made any allegations or sought any relief against the DDA. 34 Thereafter he was cross-examined by counsel for defendant number 2. Here also he deposed that he has not claimed any relief against defendant number 2.

35 Thereafter he was cross-examined by counsel for defendant number 1. Relevant extracts of his cross examination are as follows. He deposed that he was unemployed since beginning. He is 10 th standard pass. It is correct that in prayer number 3, he has only sought the declaration in respect of plot number 13. It is correct that in the plaint he has not mentioned about plot number B-95. It is correct that Khatoni exhibit PW1/1 was in his possession since 25th of April 1986 and previously his mother had obtained the same and filed it in the court of learned civil judge Shri R.S. Arya. He was asked a specific question no.10 of cross-examination dated 22.02.2018 that on 16.02.1982 the residents of village Nangal Dewat filed a civil writ petition before Hon'ble High Court no. 481/1982 titled as Dario Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. where plaintiff was petitioner no. 234, his mother Smt. Maina Devi was petitioner no. 232, his brother Sh.

CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 33/52 Mange Ram was petitioner no. 233, his uncle Sh. Ghasi Ram was petitioner no. 235 to which the plaintiff gave an evasive reply and did not give a direct answer and replied that the village Pradhan made a survey of each house and each family member and recorded the name of each family person. He deposed that till date he has not challenged the mutation in the name of Smt. Sita Singh but had filed a civil suit no. 246/1989 which was compromised in 1990. He deposed that he came to know about the forgery allegedly committed by late Sh. Ghasi Ram in the year 1989 when Smt. Sita Singh came to take possession of the suit land. He deposed that neither himself, nor his father or mother took any action against the said forgery committed by Sh. Ghasi Ram. He deposed that he was not aware about the factum of sale deed before filing of the present suit no. 330/2015. He deposed that he is aware that a Will was executed by late Smt. Sita Singh on 15.11.1990 in favour of defendant no.1 with regard to the suit land bearing khasra no. 1258/2 of village Nangal Dewat after the compromise dated 30.01.1990. He deposed that this Will is bogus since it was executed after the compromise by Smt. Sita Singh. He deposed that after the initiation of acquisition proceedings of the suit land he or any of his family members have not filed any claim or objection before the Land Acquisition Collector. He deposed that except the present case, he or any of his family members have not filed any claim or application for getting a plot in lieu of the acquired land before any authority. He deposed that a plot was allotted in the name of his mother but the same was in lieu of some other land and it was not in lieu of the suit CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 34/52 property. He deposed that except the present suit he has not challenged the Bhumidari rights of defendant no.1 with regard to the suit land. He deposed that he was born in 1965 and is not in a position to tell about the proceedings held in 1972. He deposed that his father expired in 1969 and was not aware about the execution of the sale deed dated 22.04.1964. He deposed that he has already filed specimen signatures of his late father on record. He deposed that he filed the present suit after attaining knowledge of the mutation in favour of Smt. Sita Singh. (But even as per the deposition of the plaintiff he came to know about this mutation of the suit land in favour of Smt. Sita Singh on 25 th April 1986 when the khatoni Ex.PW1/1 came in his possession.) 36 Thereafter, plaintiff examined Mr. Mahavir Master by way of evidence affidavit. PW2 Mr Mahavir Singh was cross examined also. In his evidence affidavit, he deposed as follows:-

37 He deposed that he knows the plaintiff Baljeet Singh and his family as well as his brother Mange Ram as they were permanent residents of village Nangal Dewat. He deposed that Sh. Baljeet Singh and Sh. Mange Ram were in possession of the house built on half portion of khasra no. 1258/1/2, Nangal Dewat. He deposed that Hira Ram and his brother Ghasi Ram were owners to the extent of half share each in plot no. 1258/1/2 situated in Village Nangal Dewat. That Sh. Ghasi Ram sold his half share to Smt. Sita Singh which was later on transferred to Sh. Iqbal Singh. He deposed that Sh. Ghasi Ram had transferred his possession of half share of CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 35/52 plot no. 1258/1/2 to Smt. Sita Singh, remaining half share belonging to Hira Ram was in possession of Mange Ram and Baljeet. He deposed that Iqbal Singh wrongly claimed ownership of entire plot of khasra no. 1258/1/2. He deposed that a complaint dated 12.11.2009 was made to Nodal officer, EDM, South West, Kapashera, New Delhi by Nangal Dewat Vikas Samiti against allotment of plot no. B-95 which is also signed by him. He deposed that Sh. Iqbal Singh has no right to the allotment of the entire plot. He was cross examined. His evidence was tendered in both the cases i.e suit no. 330/15 and 331/15. Relevant extracts of his cross examination are as follows:-

38 He deposed that he was working as a Secretary, Nangal Dewat Vikas Samiti in 2009. The Samiti had made a complaint with regard to plot no. B-95 which is Mark A and copy of same is already on record. During his cross examination, he deposed that Sh. Hira Singh and Ghasi Ram had possessed approximately 350 bighas in village Nangal Dewat and they had also got three residential houses each and one plot as per his knowledge. He is not aware that both Hira Singh and Ghasi Ram had sold all their properties except their two houses situated in Lal Dora abadi of village Nangal Dewat. He deposed that his mother and sister have sold their properties but he does not know to whom they were sold. He deposed that he could not tell as to when and from whom he came to know that the property bearing khasra no. 1258/2, Nangal Dewat were sold to Smt. Sita Singh but this knowledge came to him from the villagers. He deposed that his house is adjacent to that CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 36/52 of residence of plaintiff and Sh. Mange Ram. He deposed that he is not aware that in 1964 both Hira Singh and Ghasi Ram sold their entire plot bearing khasra no. 1258/2 to Smt. Sita Singh.

39 PW3 Jai Kumar, Judicial Assistant, Record Room Civil was examined but not cross examined. His testimony is not material to decide the issues of the case.

40 Testimony of PW4 Sh. Manoj Gupta is also not relevant to the issues of the case.

41 Testimony of PW5 is also not relevant.

42 Thereafter, Sh. Inder Singh Dahiya, advocate was examined as the next plaintiff witness and he was wrongly labeled as PW5. He deposed that a suit no. 246/1989 titled as Ghasi Ram & Ors. Vs Shish Pal & Ors. was filed by him on behalf of the plaintiff. Sh. P.S. Sharma advocate was appointed as local commissioner and he was the attorney on record/counsel for the plaintiffs in that suit. He deposed that he was present at the time of inspection proceedings on 30.05.1989 and his signatures are at Point A on inspection report Mark R. 43 Thereafter, defendant examined himself by way of evidence affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. In his evidence affidavit, he deposed on the same lines as that of his written statement. Copy of sale deed dated 22.04.1964 was exhibited. Khatoni for the year 1964-65 issued on 25.04.1986 already on record as Ex.PW-1/1 was also referred to. He deposed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP no. 5258/2003 titled as Iqbal Singh vs CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 37/52 International Airport authority of India & Anr. passed an order dated 05.11.2003 directing that the petitioner Iqbal Singh is liable to be included in the draw of lots in view of the directions passed vide order dated 29.10.2003 in CWP No. 481/1982. That the Hon'ble high Court in CM (Main) no. 249/2007 vide order dated 30.05.2007 clearly held that the civil court ought not to have entertained suits filed by the persons who have never filed a claim before the Nodal Officer. Hon'ble High Court also held that jurisdiction of the civil court already stands curtailed in the matter where land stands acquired under Land Acquisition Act. It was further held that the trial court will in future desist from entertaining such suits relating to land of village Nangal Dewat which have been the subject matter of acquisition for the purposes of airport extension. He deposed that from the pleadings of the present suit as well as the successive suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant no.1, it is clear that at the time of filing the said suit, plaintiff was in a position to seek the relief of declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 22.04.1964. The present suit is also barred by limitation. From the pleadings of the previous litigations filed by the plaintiff, it is clear that the father, mother and brother of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff had clear knowledge of the sale deed since the beginning. Land Acquisition Collector made the award no. 16/86-87 in 1986 and assessed the compensation of the entire suit land in the name of Smt. Sita Singh. In the present suit, plaintiff has also filed a copy of the revenue document issued to the plaintiff on 25.04.1986 Ex.PW-1/1-2 where the fact of sale deed in question and the CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 38/52 mutation order dated 18.10.1965 is clearly mentioned. Therefore, plaintiff cannot challenge the sale deed after 43 years of execution and registration of the same. Suit filed by the plaintiff is also barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 as the suit land was governed by the provisions of the said act and admittedly the plaintiff is not a recorded bhumidar of the suit land. In the garb of present suit, plaintiff is also seeking bhumidari rights of the suit land which is not permissible. Since defendant no.1 deponent is the legal and recorded owner/bhumidar of the suit property, therefore, plaintiff has no locus standi or right to seek any declaration and injunction against the deponent. Till date plaintiff has not challenged the bhumidari rights of the deponent. Before seeking the relief of declaration and injunction, plaintiff is required to challenge the bhumidari of the deponent and after getting bhumidari rights in his favour, plaintiff can seek the relief of declaration and injunction against the deponent. Plaintiff has no locus to challenge the legality and validity of sale deed dated 22.04.1964 Ex. DW-1/1 and the Will dated 15.11.1990 Ex. DW-1/7 executed by Smt. Sita Singh in favour of the deponent. Plaintiff is neither a blood relation of Smt. Sita Singh nor has any other relation with her in any manner which may confer any right in his favour in respect of the estate left behind by late Smt. Sita Singh. After acquisition of the suit land, neither the revenue court nor the civil court has any jurisdiction over the subject matter. Only remedy available with the plaintiff was to file a claim under Section 30/31 of Land Acquisition Act. Alleged compromise dated 30.01.1990 is hit by CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 39/52 provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act. It is submitted that the alleged order dated 30.01.1990 creates a right in favour of the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff and in the absence of registration of the same, this court cannot look into and rely upon the same. The legal heirs of late Sh. Mange Ram son of late Sh. Hira Singh i.e. Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Sh. Mange Ram, Pradeep and Mahipal sons of late Sh. Mange Ram also filed an appeal no. 28/05 before the Deputy Commissioner, South West, Delhi in which they challenged the mutation order dated 25.08.2003. Said appeal was dismissed on 31.08.2005 and the said dismissal has not been challenged before any authority or court. Therefore, the mutation order dated 31.08.2005 has become final and plaintiff has no right to challenge the same. Certified copy of abovementioned order dated 31.08.2005 is Ex. DW-1/13. Till 31.07.2007 when the Land Acquisition Collector took possession of the suit land, the same was in possession of the deponent. Copy of Ration card of deponent at the address of the suit property is on record and is Ex. DW- 1/14. The property was also assessed by the MCD for house tax in the name of deponent. Due to delay in handing over the possession of plot no. B-95 in lieu of the suit land, the Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Project division also gave an amount of Rs.51,000/- as rent by issuing a cheque dated 13.08.2007 in favour of the deponent. Copy of cheque is Mark B. 44 DW1 was cross examined and relevant extracts of his cross examination are as follows:-

45 He deposed that Smt. Sita Singh executed the Will in his favour CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 40/52 as he had extended several benefits and granted many favours to late Smt. Sita Singh for a long time before her death and also because he was very kind to late Smt. Sita Singh during her life time as several tragedies had befallen her during her life time. He deposed that he has placed on record sale deed, naksha muntazamin, survey report and khatoni that shows that Smt. Sita Singh was in possession of the entire suit land bearing khasra no. 1258/2, village Nangal Dewat, Delhi. The copy of writ petition filed by Airport Authority of India vs DDA & Ors. is Mark E. Rest of his cross examination is not fruitful to the case of the plaintiff. Numerous suggestions have been given by counsel for the plaintiff suggesting that the witness has committed many illegalities and has illegally grabbed the suit plot from the plaintiff and all these suggestions were clearly denied by the witness defendant no.1.

46 Thereafter, Sh. Ajay Yadav, Assistant Zonal Inspector was examined as DW2. He deposed that he is a summoned witness and that no record pertaining to village Nangal Dewat was available in his office. He deposed that it is correct that no villagers of village Nangal Dewat used to pay house tax.

47 Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav was examined as DW3. He deposed that he is a summoned witness and had brought Will dated 15.11.1990 Ex. DW- 1/7 registered in their office on 12.05.2003. His cross examination is not useful for deciding any of the issues that were framed. 48 Thereafter, Mr. Ajay Yadav was examined as DW4. He was not CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 41/52 cross examined and his testimony is also not relevant. 49 Thereafter, Mr. Devendra Kumar was examined as DW5. His evidence also is not relevant.

50 Thereafter, Sh. Kailash Kumar, Kanungo at LAC Branch, District New Delhi was examined as DW6. His evidence also is not relevant for deciding the issues.

51 Thereafter, Sh. Omvir Kanungo SDM, Vasant Vihar was examined as DW-7. He deposed that mutation order dated 25.08.2003 has been passed on the basis of Will in favour of Iqbal Singh. He has no personal knowledge as to who was present at the time of mutation. 52 Thereafter, Sh. Dharmender Dagar was examined as DW8. He deposed that the Kanungo LAC has attested the document Ex. DW-8/1 and Ex. DW-8/2 which are the survey report of the year 1972 and copy of naksha muntazamin respectively. He deposed that it is correct that the survey report is in Urdu language and he was unable to tell as to who is the owner of the said khasra number.

53 Thereafter Mr. N.S Bhati was examined as DW9. He is also a summoned witness and had brought the record under the rehabilitation scheme which is Ex. DW-9/1. His cross examination also does not throw any light upon the issues to be decided by the court.

54 Thereafter Mr. Sushil Gupta was examined as DW10. He was examined by way of evidence affidavit Ex. DW-10/A. He relied upon exhibited document Ex. DW-1/7 dated 09.09.2018. He deposed that he knew CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 42/52 and met Iqbal Singh for the first time at residence of Smt. Sita Singh in 1985-86. He deposed that except for the Will, no other documents were signed by Smt. Sita Singh in his presence. Sher Singh was present at the house of Smt. Sita Singh when they reached there. His cross examination also does not throw any light on any of the issues to be decided by the court. 55 Thereafter, Mr. R.C Meena was examined as D3W1 by way of evidence affidavit Ex.D3W-1/A. His evidence also is not relevant for deciding the issues at hand.

My issue-wise findings are as follows:-

Issue no 1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation the sale deed having been executed in the year 1964? OPD-1

56 As per the contents of the registered sale deed, the suit property was sold by the admitted owners Hira Singh and Ghasi Ram both sons of Bakhtawar Singh in the year 1964 in favour of Smt. Sita Singh and the mutation in her favour in revenue records was made by the authorities in 1965. This land alongwith other land of village Nangal Dewat was acquired by the govt under a notification under sections 4 and 6 in 1972 and the award in respect of this land was made and published in the year 1986. The plaintiff had already achieved the age of majority in 1986 when this award was published and the publication of this award in newspapers is a sufficient notice to all concerned and as per the award Smt. Sita Singh was the owner of this property in the revenue records. Moreover, in writ petition number CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 43/52 481/1982 titled as Daryao Singh and others versus UOI wherein plaintiff was also a party as petitioner no 234, all the relevant records and other particulars relating to ownership of land were annexed by the petitioner and as per the revenue records annexed Smt. Sita Singh was the owner of this land under khasra number 1258/2. The plaintiff never challenged this sale deed either after the publication of this award or at the time of this writ petition for which as per the limitation act, the time period for challenging the sale deed was 3 yrs from the date of knowledge. Surprisingly, even in this suit the plaintiff has not challenged the sale deed which forms the very foundation of the reliefs in the present suit and as such the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by law of limitation as in the garb of this injunction suit, he is questioning the sale deed without seeking specific relief of its cancellation.

Issue number 2 : Whether the plaintiff has no right title or interest in the property in question as it was sold in the year 1964 to Smt. Sita Singh, the predecessor in interest of the defendant number 1 which fact has been concealed from the court and the suit is hit by the provisions of section 34 of specific relief act ? OPD-1 57 The plaintiff has no right title or interest in the property in question and this property was already sold in the year 1964 to Smt. Sita Singh, the predecessor in interest of the defendant number 1. The sale deed registered in the year 1964 and also the mutation in the name of Smt. Sita CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 44/52 Singh in the year 1965 was never challenged within the period of limitation by the plaintiff before any appropriate forum. The ownership claimed by the plaintiff by virtue of the compromise dated 30/01/1990 is full of ambiguities. The alleged compromise was not a court decree. The same was dismissed as withdrawn. The appropriate course for the party then was to seek cancellation of the sale deed under specific relief act which the plaintiff never did. The alleged compromise was never registered under registration act and has no force in the eyes of law. In the above facts the plaintiff was never entitled for any relief under the provisions of the section 34 of the specific relief act which is discretionary relief and plaintiff's assertions that he came to know about the allotment of the disputed plot in the name of defendant number 1 immediately before filing the present suit are totally incorrect and not capable of belief. It appears that the plaintiff under the garb of the alleged compromise dated 30/01/1990 which itself is full of ambiguities and unworthy of credit is trying to mislead the court that he had no knowledge of the factum of sale and ownership of the disputed land. Therefore, this issue is decided in against the plaintiff.

Issue no 3 : Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by provisions of section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms act? OPD-1 58 Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act says as follows:

Cognizance of suits, etc, under this Act. - (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 45/52 Schedule I shall , notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof.

(2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie form an order passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule afore-

said.

(3) An appeal shall lie from the final order passed by a court mentioned in column 3 to the court or authority mentioned in column 8 thereof.

(4) A second appeal shall lie from the final order passed in an appeal under sub section (3) to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 9 of the Schedule aforesaid..

COMMENTS

(i) The Act has created a whole hierarchy of courts for the determination of the question relating to rights and liabilities regarding land. In such an event and even on a plain reading of Section 185 the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is ousted by implication. Kacheru v.Risal Singh ILR (1970 11-Delhi Pg.29) Gaon Sabha of Lado sarai versus Jage Ram ILR (973) 1 Delhi Page 984.

(ii) Section 185(1) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Plaintiff claiming in sub- stance bhumidhari right and challenging vesting order in consequence - such a suit cannot be brought in Civil Court. In this case the Plaintiff, claim in CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 46/52 substance was that he had bhumidari rights in the suit land and the vesting order was contrary to law, the court held that such a suit could not be brought in the Civil Courts by virtue of Section 185(1) of the Act.

(a) The Act was a complete code and the civil court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 185(1) of the Act to entertain a suit in which the plaintiff al- leges that he is the proprietor of the suit land and asks for declaration that he is entitled to bhumidhari rights in respect of the said land.

As per the provisions of the Delhi land reforms act and the specific relief act, the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff was to seek the relief of cancellation of sale deed which was registered in favour of Sita Singh and thereafter he should have approached the revenue court within the time period prescribed for mutation in his favour. For bhumidari rights and mutation the exclusive jurisdiction lies before the revenue courts as per provisions of section 185 of Delhi land reforms act. And as such the plaintiff ousted himself from the re- lief of mutation in his favour which could have entitled him for the allotment of the plot under the welfare scheme and that too only if the plaintiff would have followed the scheme laid down by hon'ble High Court in writ petition number 481/82 titled as Daryao Singh and others versus UOI. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

Issue number 4 : Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction in view of valuation by CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 47/52 the DDA at the rate of Rs 1,20,000/- per sq mtr and the total value of property being more than 20 crores? OPD 1 & 3 59 In view of the reliefs claimed in the present suit by the plaintiff, i.e. the reliefs of declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, plaintiff has valued his suit appropriately as in the present suit plaintiff has not claimed possession of any plot under the welfare scheme. Plaintiff is only seeking declaration as mentioned in the prayer clause alongwith the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunction. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff.

Issue number 5 : Whether the suit is bad for want of service of manda- tory notice under section 80 CPC? OPD-2 60 The present suit is accompanied by an application for urgent re- lief under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC. In the said application the plaintiff had prayed for the urgent and immediate relief of restraining the defendants from taking possession, constructing any structure or utilizing the rehabilitation plot number 13 or any other plot allotted in lieu of the plot bearing khasra number 1258/2 situated in extended lal dora abadi of village nangal dewat till final disposal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 CPC because if the plaintiff had waited for the statu- tory period to expire his entire suit and application would have become in- fructuous.

CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 48/52 Issue no 6 : Whether the suit is bad for want of service of mandatory no- tice under section 53-B of DD Act? OPD 3 61 The answer to this issue also is the same as that of the above is- sue that if the plaintiff had waited for the statutory period to expire his entire suit and application would have become infructuous. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is bad for want of said statutory notice.

Issue no 7 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as asked for in the plaint? OPP 62 Plaintiff has prayed for the following declaratory reliefs :

1) That the will executed by Smt. Sita Singh be declared null and void.

2) And it be declared that the plaintiff is entitled for the separate and inde-

pendent rehabilitation plot admeasuring 600 sq mts in lieu of land under his possession.

63 Relief of declaration is a discretionary relief. It means that the party claiming such relief must come to the court with clean hands. In the opinion of the court, plaintiff is not entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for by him. He has no locus for seeking a declaration for the cancel- lation of the will executed by Smt. Sita Singh as he has miserably failed to prove that he had any sort of right, title or interest in the land in question. And he is not a legal heir of late Smt. Sita Singh. Moreover, as per the sub-

CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 49/52 mission of Ld. Standing Counsel for the Airport Authority of India and as per the record of writ petition filed by Airport Authority of India in WP civil no. 1015/11 dated 14/02/11 in the matter of AAI versus DDA and others, the entitlement of defendant no 1 for an alternative plot on the basis of this will is already under challenge and the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court.

64 Now, so far as regards the relief of declaration of the plaintiff having been entitled for a separate and independent rehabilitation plot is concerned, in the opinion of the court the plaintiff is not entitled for such a relief as he did not opt for the elaborate scheme chalked out by the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Daryao Singh and others versus U.O.I. wherein the Hon'ble Court had clearly observed that the allotment under this welfare scheme will only be in accordance with the procedure to be followed as per the scheme laid down by the Hon'ble High Court. As per that scheme, the Hon'ble High Court had appointed a nodal officer and all the parties claim- ing any entitlement in lieu of the land acquired under this welfare scheme were required to approach the nodal officer within 15 days. On 28/04/2004, the Hon'ble high court gave liberty to the parties to file necessary documents within 15 days of the date of such order in order to claim entitlement for al- ternate plot in lieu of their land acquisition and also to file objections if any. On 26/08/2004, the Hon'ble High Court condoned the delay in making the applications. On 18/05/2005, the Hon'ble High Court again gave another op-

CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 50/52 portunity to make any claims or objections before the nodal agency within 15 days of the passing of the said order. But inspite of several opportunities given by Hon'ble High Court, the plaintiff failed to make any such claim be- fore the nodal agency in respect of the abovesaid land bearing khasra no 1258/2, even though it is pertinent to note that in respect of the acquisition of the other land under the same settlement scheme, plaintiff and his mother had filed their claims before the nodal agency. As per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the only option to get a plot under the scheme was to follow the scheme laid down under the said writ petition and as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain suits for entitlement of plots under the scheme was ex- pressly barred. In view of the express guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the above said writ petition, this court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief whatsoever to the plaintiff. Appropriate remedy for the plaintiff was to have approached the nodal agency within the time appointed by the Hon'ble High Court and in the event of any dispute before the nodal agency, the plaintiff should have approached the Hon'ble High Court only. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.

Issue no 8: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent in- junction as asked for in the plaint? OPP 65 This relief as is claimed by the plaintiff is already subjudice be- fore the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in civil writ petition number 1015/2011 CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 51/52 dated 14/02/2011 filed by the Airport Authority of India against the defen- dant no 1. Therefore, this court does not have any power to give any finding or relief on this issue.

Issue number 9 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of manda- tory injunction as asked for in the plaint? OPP 66 This relief also as is claimed by the plaintiff is already subjudice before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in civil writ petition number 1015/2011 dated 14/02/2011. Therefore, this court does not have any power to give any finding or relief on this issue.

Relief In view of my above mentioned findings in all the issues that were raised and the claims of the plaintiff, it is hereby held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. Therefore, the suit of the plain- tiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. File be consigned to RR af- ter completion of necessary formalities.

Digitally signed by SUNIL

                                            SUNIL             BENIWAL
                                            BENIWAL           Date: 2019.10.10
                                                              15:48:51 +0530
Announced in the open Court on
09th October, 2019                         (SUNIL BENIWAL)
                                          ADJ-02, Central,THC/Delhi




CS No. 14268/16            Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA                   52/52