Delhi District Court
Jasbir Manchanda (Senior Citizen) vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ No.734/25
CNR No.DLST01-018399-2025
Mrs. Jasbir Manchanda
W/o late Sh. H.S. Manchanda,
R/o C-41, Friends Colony East,
New Delhi 110065.
Presently residing at:
Manchanda Farm,
Kh. No.60, 101, 102, 103 and 104,
Village Chattarpur,
New Delhi 110074. .....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi 110002.
2. Additional/District Magistrate (South),
Office of the DM (South),
Saket, New Delhi 110068.
3. Deputy Conservator of forest (South),
Department of Forest,
Page 1 of 46
Govt of NCT of Delhi,
near Karni Shooting Range,
Tuglakabad, New Delhi 110044.
4. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Saket),
Office at Saket, New Delhi 110068.
5. Tehsildar (Saket),
Office at Saket, New Delhi 110068.
6. The SHO, PS Mehrauli,
Delhi 110030. .....DEFENDANTS
Date of institution of suit: 11.11.2025
Date of judgment : 24.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgement, this Court shall strive to decide and dispose of the captioned suit.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking reliefs of declaration, prohibitory, perpetual, permanent and mandatory injunction, against the defendants in respect of status of subject land ie property bearing description Farm house/Land Bearing Khasra Nos. 60, 101 (4-16), 102 (3-18), 103 (5-19), and 104 (1-14) of Revenue Estate of Village Chattarpur, Tehsil Saket, New Delhi, known as 'Manchanda Farm/ Manchanda Poultry Farm' admeasuring around 10,000 sq yards ('Suit property/ Subject property').
Page 2 of 463. The plaintiff had filed three applications along with the suit ie application u/o 39 rule 1 & 2 r/w Or. 26 and Or 39 Rule 7 CPC, application u/s 151 which were allowed on the respective dates.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is in absolute, uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the subject property since 1974 which was allotted to her by Gram Sabha, Village Chattarpur.
5. The Ld. Counsel has also argued that the plaintiff is using the subject property for agricultural and poultry activities. The report of the Halqa Patwari/ Tehsildar is filed along with the plaint. The submission is also confirmed and supported by the report of the Court appointed Commissioner.
6. It is also the case of the plaintiff that some unknown persons are approaching the property of the plaintiff and are extending threats to the plaintiff along with demanding illegal gratification. Necessary police complaint has been filed but no action has been taken in the matter by police authority.
7. It was also submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the said unknown persons approached the subject property and informed the security guard/ plaintiff on 01.11.2025 and 08.11.2025 that the subject property is under the process of being acquired by the Forest Department (GNCT of Delhi) and are seeking illegal gratification to get her property exempted from the acquisition/ list of properties.
8. The Ld. Counsel argued that the plaintiff has annexed relevant property records along with the suit which establishes that the subject property was shown as 'Gram Sabha' land till 2009-2010, along with Page 3 of 46 annexing revenue records for the year 2017-18 which mention the subject property as Forest Land.
9. It has also been submitted that on 11.11.2025 that unknown persons had affixed copies of two notices dated 30.10.2025 purportedly issued by the office of Dy. Conservator of Forest, South Delhi. The notices are filed along with the suit and have been exhibited in evidence.
10.It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that if the suit is not allowed, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable injury and loss rendering the plaintiff remedy less.
11.On the request of the plaintiff, a Court Commissioner was appointed to verify the claims of the plaintiff. The matter was adjourned for 13.11.2025.
12.None appeared for the defendants despite service. However, it is observed that the representatives on behalf Forest Department (South Forest Division), Patwari (ADM Office, South Delhi), Patwari (SDM Office, Saket), police officials from PS Mehrauli, were present during the Local Commissioner on 12.11.2025.
13.On 19.11.2025, the Ld. Court Commissioner filed its report on the record of this Court. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff was present, however none appeared on behalf of the defendants.
14.This Court deemed it fit to grant some more time to the defendants to enter their appearance, file their status report, replies. No adverse orders were passed and the matter was adjourned for 29.11.2025.
15.On 29.11.2025, once again no one appeared on behalf of the defendants being Government bodies. The Ld. Counsel for the Page 4 of 46 plaintiff pressed his interim application which was argued at length. Written submissions and judgments were filed on record.
16.After perusing the record, and hearing the arguments advance on behalf of the plaintiff, the application filed u/Or 39 Rules1 & 2 was allowed.
DETAILS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
S. Stage /
Date Essential Proceedings and Directions
No. Event
A fresh suit has been registered. The
plaintiff requested an urgent ex parte
injunction and the appointment of a
Court Commissioner. The status quo
has been ordered along with
Institution appointment of a Court Commissioner 1 11/11/2025 & interim for 12/11/2025. The SHO Mehrauli was relief instructed to provide police protection.
Summons regarding the suit and related applications have been issued, and the submission of an affidavit under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC has been directed.
Plaintiff's counsel and the Court LC report Commissioner were present; the 2 13/11/2025 timeline;
Commissioner requested and was service granted two days to submit its report.
Page 5 of 46The plaintiff submitted an affidavit of compliance in accordance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and reported service of summons to the defendants via WhatsApp and email. No appearance was made on behalf of the defendants, who were directed to file a written statement. The interim status quo order was extended. The matter was adjourned to 19 November 2025.
The Court Commissioner's report was received and distributed to all parties.
The defendants remained absent; the LC report interim order was extended. The matter 3 19/11/2025 filed was adjourned to 29 November 2025 for the appearance of the defendants and further proceedings.
The defendants were absent. The court reviewed the brief facts, prior orders, Detailed and findings, and heard comprehensive 4 29/11/2025 interim arguments from the plaintiff along with order the relevant case law cited. Upon consideration, the Court held that a Page 6 of 46 prima facie case exists in the plaintiff's favor, as well as a favorable balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable harm. Consequently, the court granted an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and from acting upon the disputed forest notices during the pendency of the suit. The matter was set for the summons/written statement stage on 15/12/2025.
Counsel representing the plaintiff was Awaiting in attendance; there was no 15/12/2025 5 appearanc representation for the defendants. (forenoon) e The defendants were once again absent, and no written statement was submitted; consequently, the right to file a written statement had been closed 15/12/2025 Defence 6 and the defendants were proceed ex (2:15 PM) struck off parte. The plaintiff was granted two days to submit proposed issues. The matter was scheduled for framing of issues on 17 December 2025.
Page 7 of 46The plaintiff submitted proposed issues for consideration. The court had determined issues pertaining to the allotment and possession since 20/11/1974, the declaration of bhumidari rights, the legality of entries made by "Van Vibhag/Forest," the validity of notices dated 30/10/2025, Issues 7 17/12/2025 and the plaintiff's entitlement to framed declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiff had been directed to file a list of witnesses and an affidavit of evidence. Certain issues raised by the plaintiff have been partially modified.
The matter was scheduled for the plaintiff's evidence on 19/12/2025.
Counsel for the plaintiff appeared; there was no representation on behalf of the defendant. PW-1 was examined and Plaintiff's 8 19/12/2025 discharged. The plaintiff's evidence evidence was concluded. The matter was scheduled for final arguments on 22/12/2025.
9 22/12/2025 Final Plaintiff's counsel was heard, and Page 8 of 46 defendants were already ex-parte. A written synopsis/ submissions along with judgments was been submitted.
arguments The matter was now reserved for any further clarifications and for judgment on December 24, 2025.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF HAVE BEEN REPEATED IN VERBATIM FACTUAL FOUNDATION
17.The Plaintiff has filed the suit seeking reliefs of declaration, prohibitory, perpetual, permanent and mandatory injunction, against the defendants in respect of status of subject land ie property bearing description Farm house/Land Bearing Khasra Nos. 60, 101 (4-16), 102 (3-18), 103 (5-19), and 104 (1-14) of Revenue Estate of Village Chattarpur, Tehsil Saket, New Delhi, known as 'Manchanda Farm/ Manchanda Poultry Farm' admeasuring around 10,000 sq yards ('Suit property/ Subject property').
18.That the plaintiff was lawfully allotted land bearing Khasra Nos. 60, 101 (4-16), 102 (3-18), 103 (5-19), and 104 (1-14) of the revenue estate of Village Chattarpur, Tehsil Saket, New Delhi in the year 1974 Page 9 of 46 by the Gram Panchayat-Sabha, Village Chhatarpur. The plaintiff duly reclaimed the said barren land and has utilized it for agricultural and poultry farming purposes since the time of its allotment. Relevant allotment documents, Gram Pradhan certificates, and Khasra Girdawari are annexed as ANX No. 1 (Colly).
19.That the Plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful and lawful possession since 1974, pursuant to the Gram Sabha allotment and the DDA Lease Deed dated 20.11.1974 (Plaint Paras 1-4). The Suit Property has been regularly used for agricultural and poultry purposes. It is further submitted that the Local Commissioner's Report dated 12.11.2025 confirms permanent poultry sheds, water tanks, electrical poles and residential occupation for over two decades (LC Report pp. 1-5).
20.That the property is fully fenced, along with having a boundary wall, and is demarcated. Revenue records up to 2015-16 consistently reflect the land as Gram Sabha land or under the Plaintiff's use (Annexures 2-4 of the plaint). The Khatauni (1990-91) examined by the Local Commissioner also contains no reference to the Forest Department (LC Report p. 6).
21.The relevant portion of the report of the Ld. LC reads as follows:
"4.On one side of the property, there is a row of old single story brick structure resembling to be a poultry farm which was also confirmed by the caretaker Suraj and Sh. Krishan Rana that the said area was used for running a poultry farm. Photographs showing the said premise are annexed herewith as Annexure No. - 2 (Colly).Page 10 of 46
5.That alongside the said single story structure was another single- story structure which was covered with tarpaulin sheets and cloth indicating that the said area was also used temporarily.
6.The premise was also having an older building with sloped asbestos roof stands within the plot. The caretaker alongwith his family has been residing in this area for the last 20 years. Having water tanks and electrical poles indicating long term occupational use of the said premise.
7.The premise area was having a visible boundary on all sides, some sides having covered with brick wall while some sides were covered with asbestos fencing. The entire premise was fully demarked and fenced with boundary.
8.The overall premise was having multiple structures including a partially built-up structure with caretaker and his family members residing & occupying the said premise for a period of around 20 years alongwith the other single story structure being used for agricultural and poultry use previously."
22.That the only contrary entry appears in the Khasra Girdawri for 2017- 18, where "Van Vibhag/Forest" has been inserted in pencil, without any order, notification, mutation or competent authority's direction (Plaint Paras 4, 16, 24; Annexure-13).
23.That the Patwari, when questioned by the LC, could not produce any document whatsoever backing this change (LC Report pp. 6-7). The alteration is therefore illegal, unauthorised, and incapable of creating rights.
Page 11 of 4624.That on 01.11.2025 and 08.11.2025, unknown individuals affixed two fabricated notices dated 30.10.2025, purporting to be issued by DCF (South), on the Plaintiff's gate (Plaint Paras 15-16; Annexure-10). Further, no response/ reply has been filed on behalf of the defendants till date.
25.That, further, certain unknown persons/ impersonators demanded Rs.30,00,000/- as illegal gratification, threatening to initiate coercive action unless the Plaintiff paid. They refused to reveal their identity and threatened forcible entry and removal of structures and livestock (Plaint Paras 18-21). This constitutes a direct and imminent threat of illegal injury, possession in regard to the plaintiff.
26.That the LC Report decisively corroborates the Plaintiff's position settled and peaceful possession; long-standing structures; absence of forest activity; and inability of Forest officials to produce any notification declaring the Suit Property as forest land (LC Report pp. 1-8).
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND STAGE OF THE SUIT
27.That the defendants failed to file their written statement despite opportunities granted by the Court, and their right to do so stood closed. Thereafter, the plaintiff led her entire evidence, which was concluded on 19.12.2025.
28.That consequently, the record before the Court consists solely of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the plaintiff. No defence pleadings Page 12 of 46 or defence evidence are on record despite granting opportunity.
29.That in such circumstances, the material averments contained in the plaint remain uncontroverted. It is settled law that facts not traversed are deemed admitted, subject to proof. It is equally settled that facts not pleaded cannot be permitted to be raised at the stage of final arguments.
30.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co., AIR 1964 SC 538, authoritatively held that non-traverse of material facts amounts to admission.
31.That prior to closure of pleadings, the Court examined the Plaintiff's case in detail while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. Vide a reasoned order dated 29.11.2025, the Court recorded categorical findings that the Plaintiff has established a strong prima facie case, that no statutory notification exists declaring the suit property as forest land, and that the notices dated 30.10.2025 lack jurisdictional foundation.
32.That this Court further held that the balance of convenience lies overwhelmingly in favour of the Plaintiff, and that denial of protection would result in irreparable injury including forcible dispossession and alteration of the character of the suit property. The Defendants were restrained from interfering with possession and from acting on the impugned notices.
33.That despite such findings, the Defendants failed to file written statement or produce any material. Their right stood closed vide order dated 15.12.2025, and they were proceeded ex-parte.
Page 13 of 4634.That the interim findings thus form a significant backdrop for final adjudication, particularly when the evidentiary position remains unchanged and the Plaintiff's evidence stands unrebutted.
35.That considering the pleadings, following issues were framed by this Court on 17.12.2025: -
a) Whether the plaintiff is the lawful allottee of the suit property and has been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession thereof since allotment dated 20.11.1974? OPP
b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of Bhumidari rights in respect of suit property? OPP
c) Whether the insertion of "Van Vibhag/Forest Department" in the revenue records relating to the suit property and the notices dated 30.10.2025 issued by defendant no.3 are illegal, unauthorised, without due process of law and liable to be declared null and void? OPP
d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
e) Relief.Page 14 of 46
36.That the Plaintiff who is a senior citizen thereafter led evidence and examined herself as PW-1, whose testimony has gone completely unrebutted. She relied upon the following documents: -
Gram Pradhan Certificates and Khasra Girdawari Ex. PW-1/A(OSR) (1975-1984) (Colly.) Aadhaar Card and Electricity Bill Ex. PW1/B(Colly) (OSR) True Copy of the certified copy of the revenue records Ex. PW1/C(Colly) dated 11.03.2015 (OSR) Copy of mutation dated 01.04.1976 carried out by Ex. PW1/D(Colly) MCD (OSR) Copy of application dated 19.10.1974 Ex. PW1/E Copy of Report of Halka Patwari dated 16.12.2015 Ex. PW1/F Copy of order dated 18.05.2018 Ex. PW1/H Copy of order dated 22.12.2015 Ex. PW1/I Copy of order dated 23.09.2019 Ex. PW1/J Copies of the said notices dated 30.10.2025 Ex. PW1/K(Colly) Copy of RTI application Ex. PW1/L(OSR) Page 15 of 46 Copy of the response dated 31.10.2025 to the RTI Ex. PW1/M(OSR) application dated 30.10.2025 copy of the said page containing the stray pencil entry Ex. PW1/N Copies of said representations, along with proof of Ex. PW1/O(Colly) service upon the concerned departments/Defendants True copy of said complaint dated 08.11.2025 Ex. PW1/P APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AFTER CLOSURE OF PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
37.The plaintiff has led documentary and oral evidence in support of her case, all of which stands duly proved and unrebutted. The defendants have neither entered the witness box nor produced any evidence to contradict or dislodge the plaintiff's case.
38.The Supreme Court in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100, held that evidence which remains unchallenged and unrebutted must ordinarily be accepted as true unless it is inherently improbable. Further, in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573, it was held that where a party having special knowledge of facts fails to enter the witness box or rebut evidence, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn.
39.That where a party having custody of the best available evidence withholds the same, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, as laid down in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413.
Page 16 of 4640.In the present case, the defendants, despite being custodians of revenue and forest records, have led no evidence whatsoever.
LAWFUL ALLOTMENT AND CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE PLAINTIFF
41.That the evidence on record establishes that the suit land was lawfully allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1974. The plaintiff has further proved that she has remained in continuous, peaceful, open and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for more than five decades.
42.This is corroborated by allotment records, revenue entries, Khasra Girdawari, mutation carried out by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in 1976, and the physical development of the land into a poultry farm.
43.That long and settled possession stands protected in law and cannot be disturbed except by due process. The Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769, held that settled possession, even apart from title, cannot be disturbed except in accordance with law. Mutation entries, though not documents of title, are relevant indicators of possession and State recognition as held in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137. There is no material on record to suggest that the plaintiff's possession was ever illegal or unauthorised.
Page 17 of 46RECOGNITION OF POSSESSION BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SITE INSPECTION
44.That the plaintiff's possession has been consistently acknowledged by revenue authorities. The Halka Patwari's inspection report records the plaintiff's possession and poultry operations on the suit land. Pursuant thereto, the Revenue Assistant permitted fencing of the land, thereby recognizing the plaintiff's lawful occupation.
45.That further, pursuant to orders of this Court, a Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit property. The Local Commissioner conducted site inspection with police assistance and in the presence of officials of the Forest Department.
46.That the inspection revealed that the suit land is a clearly demarcated and fenced parcel, containing permanent and semi-permanent structures, including old brick constructions resembling poultry sheds, covered structures, an older building with sloped roofing, water tanks, and electricity poles.
47.That the inspection further revealed continuous residential and occupational use of the premises for several decades, including residence of a caretaker and his family for a prolonged period. The physical condition of the property, existence of long-standing structures, and utilities clearly indicate settled, long-term possession rather than recent or unauthorised occupation.
48.That the Local Commissioner's report has not been objected to or Page 18 of 46 rebutted by the defendants. Official inspection conducted under authority of the Court constitutes independent and neutral evidence and carries substantial evidentiary value. In the absence of rebuttal, the factual findings recorded therein are liable to be accepted.
ENTITLEMENT TO DECLARATION OF BHUMIDARI RIGHTS
49.That the plaintiff has proved compliance with the statutory requirements under Section 74(4) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Her application seeking declaration of Bhumidari rights has remained pending for decades solely due to administrative inaction, despite directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, inviting initiation of Contempt proceedings.
50.That it is a settled principle that no party, including the State, can take advantage of its own wrong, delay, or inaction. The Supreme Court in Sham Lal v. Atma Nand Jain Sabha, (1987) 1 SCC 222, held that a party cannot be permitted to derive benefit from its own wrong. Once statutory conditions are fulfilled, accrued rights cannot be defeated by failure of authorities to act within a reasonable time.
ILLEGALITY OF "VAN VIBHAG" ENTRY IN REVENUE RECORDS
51.That the insertion of "Van Vibhag" in the revenue records has been shown to have been made without notice, without any speaking order, and without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Delhi Land Revenue Act. The entry is in the nature of a manual or Page 19 of 46 pencil notation and lacks statutory sanction.
52.That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4770, held that revenue entries do not confer title and that unauthorized alterations made without statutory procedure have no legal sanctity. Such entries cannot prejudice the rights of a person in lawful and settled possession.
53.That the Local Commissioner's inspection further revealed that revenue officials were unable to produce any document explaining lawful conversion of land earlier recorded as Gram Sabha land into Forest Department land. No order, notification, or statutory proceeding evidencing such change was produced. The insertion of "Van Vibhag" thus stands unsupported by any lawful process.
54.That revenue entries do not confer title. Unauthorised alterations made without following due process have no legal sanctity and cannot prejudice the rights of a person in lawful and settled possession. Such entries are void ab initio and liable to be ignored.
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION OF THE FOREST DEPARTMENT AND INVALIDITY OF NOTICES
55.That the notices dated 30.10.2025 issued by the Forest Department were issued without initiation or completion of proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. No statutory notification exists in respect of the suit land.
56.That the Local Commissioner recorded that Forest Department officials relied only on asserted notifications without producing Page 20 of 46 documents establishing lawful vesting of the suit land. Jurisdiction cannot be assumed by executive assertion. A defect of jurisdiction strikes at the root of authority and renders the action a nullity.
57.That further, deprivation of property without authority of law violates Article 300A of the Constitution. Executive action cannot substitute statutory compliance.
58.That any attempt to dispossess the plaintiff without authority of law also violates Article 300A of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404, reaffirmed that no person can be deprived of property save by authority of law and that executive action cannot substitute statutory compliance.
SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUES
59.That it is submitted upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence on record, and the report of the Court-appointed Local Commissioner, the Court should be obligated to find that the plaintiff has successfully discharged the burden cast upon her in respect of all the issues framed.
60.That the evidence establishes that the suit property was lawfully allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1974 by the competent authority. The allotment has been proved through documentary records and has not been disputed by the defendants. The plaintiff has further established that she has remained in continuous, peaceful, open, and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for several decades. Such possession stands corroborated by revenue records, mutation in her Page 21 of 46 favour by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Khasra Girdawari entries, and the physical development and use of the land.
61.That the plaintiff's possession has also been consistently recognised by revenue authorities. The Halka Patwari's inspection report records the plaintiff's possession and use of the land. The order of the Revenue Assistant permitting fencing further acknowledges the plaintiff's lawful occupation. These official acts lend credence to the plaintiff's case and negate any suggestion that the land was treated as forest land or vested in the Forest Department at any point in time.
62.That the findings recorded during the court-appointed site inspection provide independent corroboration of the plaintiff's case. The Local Commissioner's report establishes the existence of long-standing permanent and semi-permanent structures, utilities, fencing, and continuous residential and occupational use of the suit property. The physical condition of the land and the structures existing thereon are consistent only with long and settled possession. The Local Commissioner's report has not been objected to or rebutted and, therefore, carries substantial evidentiary value.
63.That the plaintiff has also proved compliance with the statutory requirements for declaration of Bhumidari rights under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The prolonged pendency of her application is attributable solely to administrative inaction. Such inaction cannot defeat accrued statutory rights once the conditions prescribed by law have been fulfilled. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to declaration of Bhumidari rights in respect of the suit property.
Page 22 of 4664.That as regards the insertion of "Van Vibhag" in the revenue records, the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the said entry was made without notice to the plaintiff, without any speaking order, and without following the procedure prescribed under the Delhi Land Revenue Act. The entry lacks statutory sanction and is in the nature of an unauthorised alteration. The Local Commissioner's report further records that no document evidencing lawful conversion or vesting of the suit land in favour of the Forest Department was produced by the authorities.
65.That the notices issued by the Forest Department have also been found to be without jurisdiction. No proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were initiated or completed in respect of the suit land, and no statutory notification exists. In the absence of jurisdictional foundation, the Forest Department could not have asserted control over the suit property or initiated coercive action against the plaintiff.
66.That in view of the uncontroverted pleadings, unrebutted evidence, and the independent findings recorded during the court-appointed inspection, the plaintiff has proved her lawful allotment, long and settled possession, and entitlement to declaration of rights. The insertion of "Van Vibhag" in the revenue records and the notices issued by the Forest Department are illegal, unauthorised, and without jurisdiction.
67.That, it is also submitted that the plaintiff also filed its affidavit of service depicting service on the parties/ defendants impleaded by it in the present suit. Despite service, none chose to appear before the Ld. Page 23 of 46 Court. The Plaintiff accordingly pressed upon the Ld. Court to proceed against the defendants ex-parte.
JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON: -
Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co., AIR 1964 SC 538 Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100 Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573 Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413.
Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769 Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137 Sham Lal v. Atma Nand Jain Sabha, (1987) 1 SCC 222 Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4770 State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404
68.Written submissions and judgments filed on the record of the Court.
HEARD & PERUSED OBSERVATIONS & REASONING
69.The evidence on record conclusively establishes that the plaintiff is the lawful allottee of the suit property (Farm house/Land bearing Khasra Nos. 60, 101, 102, 103, and 104 in Village Chattarpur, New Delhi), allotted in 1974. The plaintiff has remained in continuous, Page 24 of 46 peaceful, and uninterrupted possession for over five decades, as corroborated by revenue records, mutation entries, Gram Pradhan Certificates, and physical development of the property. The Local Commissioner's report further confirms settled possession, permanent structures, and absence of any forest activity or notification declaring the land as forest property.
70.In addition to the unassailable documentary and on-site evidence supporting the plaintiff's title and possession, there is a complete lack of any credible material produced by the defendants to challenge or dispute these facts. No evidence of lawful acquisition, vesting, or notification by the Forest Department regarding the suit property has been brought on record, nor has any justification for the unauthorized revenue entries been provided. The cumulative effect is that the plaintiff's rights--rooted in valid allotment, long-standing possession, and clear revenue recognition--stand fully affirmed, while the claims of forest status are unsupported and devoid of legal foundation.
71.This uncontested position is further bolstered by the consistent failure of the defendants to participate in proceedings or explain the basis of their claims, leaving the plaintiff's entitlement undisputed and the allegations of forest classification entirely unsubstantiated. As a result, the facts and law converge in establishing the plaintiff's continued enjoyment of all rights over the property, with no legitimate encumbrance or competing claim surviving scrutiny.
72.The defendants failed to file any written statement or lead evidence, despite repeated opportunities. Their right stood closed and the matter Page 25 of 46 proceeded ex parte. As per Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co., AIR 1964 SC 538, uncontroverted pleadings and unrebutted evidence are deemed admitted. The Supreme Court in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100 and Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573 held that unrebutted evidence must be accepted as true, and adverse inference can be drawn against a party withholding evidence.
73.In light of this procedural posture, the absence of any countervailing material or challenge from the defendants leaves the plaintiff's case unopposed, with the entire factual matrix and legal submissions standing unrebutted before the Court. Accordingly, the evidence and pleadings presented by the plaintiff acquire full evidentiary value and are to be relied upon in the adjudication of rights, particularly as the record demonstrates repeated failures by the defendants to participate or substantiate their claims. This approach is consistent with established legal principles that demand the Court draw appropriate inferences from non-participation and absence of proof, thereby further strengthening the plaintiff's entitlement to the reliefs sought.
74.In light of this procedural posture, the absence of any countervailing material or challenge from the defendants leaves the plaintiff's case unopposed, with the entire factual matrix and legal submissions standing unrebutted before the Court. Accordingly, the evidence and pleadings presented by the plaintiff acquire full evidentiary value and are to be relied upon in the adjudication of rights, particularly as the record demonstrates repeated failures by the defendants to participate Page 26 of 46 or substantiate their claims. This approach is consistent with established legal principles, as recognized in Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co., AIR 1964 SC 538 (holding that uncontroverted pleadings and unrebutted evidence are deemed admitted), Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100 and Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573 (where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unrebutted evidence must be accepted as true, and adverse inference can be drawn against a party withholding evidence). These judgments demand that the Court draw appropriate inferences from non-participation and absence of proof, thereby further strengthening the plaintiff's entitlement to the reliefs sought.
75.The insertion of "Van Vibhag/Forest Department" in the revenue records and issuance of notices by the Forest Department were made without due process, statutory notification, or lawful authority. The entry was a manual/pencil notation, unsupported by any official order. The Local Commissioner's report and statements from revenue officials reveal no documentary basis for such conversion. The Delhi High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4770 held that unauthorized revenue alterations have no legal sanctity and do not confer title, especially when made without following mandatory procedure.
76.In view of the foregoing, it is evident that neither the procedural nor substantive requirements for vesting the suit property with the Forest Department have been satisfied, and the impugned entries and notices are devoid of any legal foundation. The absence of any statutory Page 27 of 46 notification, coupled with the lack of proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, underscores that the jurisdiction asserted by the Forest Department is wholly unfounded. Consequently, the plaintiff's rights--rooted in lawful allotment, continuous possession, and compliance with statutory norms--remain unassailable, and administrative lapses or unauthorized revenue entries cannot negate the accrued entitlements. This position is further reinforced by established judicial precedent that deprivation of property without authority of law constitutes a violation of Article 300A of the Constitution, as recognized in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404, thus affirming the plaintiff's claim and rendering the Forest Department's actions void ab initio.
77.The plaintiff's application for declaration of Bhumidari rights under Section 74(4) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, stands established and has remained pending only due to administrative inaction, which cannot defeat accrued statutory rights (Sham Lal v. Atma Nand Jain Sabha, (1987) 1 SCC 222).
78.In view of the established rights and the unaddressed application under Section 74(4), the plaintiff's entitlement persists unimpeded by mere procedural delays, reinforcing that statutory protections and substantive rights cannot be nullified by administrative lapses or inaction. This legal position is underscored by the fact that, in the absence of any legitimate contest or statutory bar, the plaintiff's status as the lawful holder of the property is further cemented, and any contrary entries or notices--unsupported by due process--carry no Page 28 of 46 legal consequence.
79.The record, therefore, demonstrates not only the plaintiff's compliance with all necessary formalities but also the absence of any lawful vesting or notification in favor of the Forest Department, ensuring that the plaintiff's rights remain intact and fully enforceable in law.
80.Jurisdiction of the Forest Department over the suit property is not established; no proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were initiated, and no statutory notification exists. Deprivation of property without authority of law violates Article 300A of the Constitution (State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404).
81.In view of these findings, it is clear that the plaintiff's rights remain protected and unimpaired, as there is no valid basis for the Forest Department's claim or interference. The cumulative documentary record, the absence of statutory compliance, and the failure to follow due process reinforce the conclusion that the suit property's status as Gram Sabha land and the plaintiff's entitlements must be upheld.
82.In sum, the plaintiff has proved lawful allotment, continuous possession, compliance with statutory requirements, and absence of any lawful vesting or notification in favor of the Forest Department. The evidence stands unrebutted. The suit property's status as Gram Sabha land and the plaintiff's rights are established. The unauthorized "Van Vibhag" entry and invalid notices are void ab initio.
83.Consequently, the Court finds that the plaintiff's entitlement to the property is unimpaired by any administrative irregularities or procedural lapses on the part of the authorities. The record Page 29 of 46 demonstrates not only consistent adherence to the legal framework by the plaintiff but also a complete absence of lawful authority or substantiation for the Forest Department's claims. In the absence of any credible opposition or valid statutory bar, the plaintiff's rights over the suit property must be recognized and enforced, rendering any contrary entries or notices legally inconsequential. The Court, therefore, holds that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought, and directs that all impugned entries and notices be set aside as having no legal effect.
OPINION AND CONCLUSION
84.The submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff strongly support the view that rights granted by deed, allotment or agreement are robust, continuing interests not extinguished simply by change in nature/ description of the said land, without following due process of law.
85.The said rights, either by necessity or by prescription advocate judicial caution in disturbing concurrent factual findings unless clear legal errors or statutory misinterpretations exist.
86.It is observed that the extinguishment of possessory rights without proper pleadings or evidence violates procedural fairness and substantive law.
87.The case of the plaintiff supported by the facts, pleadings, circumstances, report of the Ld. LC and the citations promote the doctrine that judicial interference on fact-finding should be Page 30 of 46 exceptional.
88.Overall, the submissions made by the plaintiff have convinced this Court to observe and hold rights as legal and robust interests unless conclusively shown to be extinguished by law or agreement.
89.This Court has perused the judgements filed by the plaintiff, and is inclined to state the underlying ratio as propounded:
BADAT & CO. V. EAST INDIA TRADING CO., AIR 1964 SC 538
90.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that a party which has acquiesced to another's possession or dealings with property over an extended period is estopped by conduct from subsequently seeking a declaration or injunction to disturb that possession. To claim injunctive or declaratory relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate the absence of acquiescence or estoppel; a mere paper title is insufficient against long-standing, unchallenged possession, which creates an equitable bar to interference.
NARAYAN BHAGWANTRAO GOSAVI V. GOPAL VINAYAK GOSAVI, AIR 1960 SC 100
91.The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that prolonged, continuous possession--even without perfect title documentation--raises a presumption of ownership sufficient to support a declaration and injunction against dispossession. A plaintiff succeeds if possession is clearly established, while a defendant asserting superior title must provide compelling evidence to rebut this presumption; absent such Page 31 of 46 evidence, an injunction maintains the status quo.
VIDHYADHAR V. MANIKRAO, (1999) 3 SCC 573
92.Unregistered agreements or powers of attorney (GPA) confer no interest in immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Plaintiffs cannot obtain declarations of title or injunctions based solely on unregistered GPA/ATS; relief is denied where claims rest on defective documents lacking registered conveyance, underscoring the necessity for strict statutory compliance in possessory or declaratory suits.
GOPAL KRISHNAJI KETKAR V. MOHAMED HAJI LATIF, AIR 1968 SC 1413
93.The burden lies entirely with the plaintiff to substantiate their case for declaration or injunction, independent of any weaknesses in the defence; relief cannot be granted merely due to the defendant's inability to refute the claim. For injunctive relief, the plaintiff must establish prima facie title or possession; speculative assertions or incomplete pleadings justify denial of relief.
RAME GOWDA V. M. VARADAPPA NAIDU, (2004) 1 SCC 769
94.Possession alone, irrespective of title, entitles a party to seek injunction against interference from those lacking superior title. Declaration or injunction may be granted to protect actual possession pending adjudication of title; however, holders of a superior title must Page 32 of 46 pursue ejectment proceedings. Relief is routinely provided where settled possession and threat of dispossession are convincingly demonstrated.
BALWANT SINGH V. DAULAT SINGH, (1997) 7 SCC 137
95.Extended adverse possession (twelve years) confers perfected title, enabling the claimant to secure a declaration against the prior owner. Plaintiffs establishing adverse possession prevail in suits seeking declaration and injunction, whereas original owners are precluded by limitation statutes.
BHAGWAN DASS V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), 2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 4770
96.The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi upheld declarations and injunctions granted to long-term possessors (Gram Sabha allottees) resisting state dispossession absent due process. Relief was maintained where revenue records and evidence of possession outweighed recent mutations; injunction safeguards against arbitrary executive actions pending determination of title.
STATE OF HARYANA V. MUKESH KUMAR, (2011) 10 SCC 404
97.The State may not dispossess citizens without notice and hearing; writ Page 33 of 46 petitions and injunctions may be entertained against summary evictions. Declarations of illegal dispossession were granted along with restoration of possession, recognising the plaintiff's right to protection from administrative actions violating principles of natural justice.
DECISION:
98.At this juncture, it is imperative to go back the basic tenets of the law.
Essentials of pleadings A pleading should
(a) state material facts and not the evidence on which the party seeks to rely on,
(b) state such facts in a concise form, and
(c) provide all particulars where they are required. These conditions are contained in Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, and the requirement to state all material facts has time and again been emphasized by the Supreme Court. For instance, in Udhav Singh v Madhav Rao Scindia AIR 1976 SC 744, wherein it was clarified that all the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are material facts.
99. The failure to disclose material facts can even attract the grave consequence of the suit being dismissed in its entirety, making the observations of the Supreme Court in Virender Nath v. Satpal Singh Page 34 of 46 2007 (3) SCC 617 pivotal:
"...it is however absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish existence of a cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleadings by the party."
UDHAV SINGH V. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 744 "28. All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are "material facts". In the context of a charge of corrupt practice, "material facts" would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election-petition, a particular fact is material or not, and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the charge leveled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. In short, all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action, are "material facts" which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of sec. 83(1)(a).
"Particulars", on the other hand, are "the details of the case set up by the party". "Material particulars" within the contemplation of clause
(b) of s. 83(i) would therefore mean all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in Page 35 of 46 the petition in compliance with the requirements of clause (a).
Particulars serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn, to make it full, more detailed and more informative.
29.The distinction between material facts and material particulars"
was pointed out by this Court in several cases, three of which have been cited at the bar. It is not necessary to refer to all of them. It will be sufficient to close the discussion by extracting what A. N. Ray J. (as he then was) said on this point in Hardwari Lals case (supra):
"It is therefore vital that the corrupt practice charged against the respondent should be a full and complete statement of material facts to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action and to give an equal and full opportunity to the respondent to meet the case and to de fend the charges. Merely, alleging that the respondent obtained or procured or attempted to obtain or procure assistance are extracting words from the statute which will have no meaning unless and until facts are stated to show what that assistance is and how the prospect of election is furthered by such assistance. In the present case, it was not even alleged that the assistance obtained or procured was other than the giving of vote. It was said by counsel for the respondent that because the statute did not render the giving of vote a corrupt practice the words "any assistance" were full statement of material fact. The submission is fallacious for the simple reason that the manner of assistance, the measure of assistance are all various aspects of fact to clothe the petition with a cause of action which will call for an answer.Page 36 of 46
Material facts are facts which if established would give the petitioner the relief asked for. If the respondent had not appeared, could the court have given a verdict in favour of the election petitioner. The answer is in the negative because the allegations in the petition did not disclose any cause of action."
Facta probanda or the facts required to be proved, are the foundational elements of any legal claim or defense. These are the material facts upon which a party bases their case. In simple terms, these are the "what" of the case ie the core allegations or assertions that a party needs to establish to succeed.
100. For example, based on the facts of the present case, in a breach of contract claim, the facta probanda might include:
The existence of a contract.
The obligations stipulated by the contract. The breach of those obligations by the opposing party. The resultant damages incurred due to the breach.
101. The facts are to be proved in accordance with the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act (as amended upto date/ BSA 2023) which have been reproduced herein:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Relevant Provisions:
101. Burden of proof.
Whoever desires any Court to give judgement as to any legal right or Page 37 of 46 liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustrations
(a)A desires a Court to give judgement that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.
(b)A desires a Court to give judgement that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts.
102. On whom burden of proof lies.
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Illustrations
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
103. Burden of proof as to any particular fact.
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
104. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.
Page 38 of 46The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence.
Illustrations
(a)A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove B's death.
(b)A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a lost document. A must prove that the document has been lost.
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a)When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b)A is charged with travelling in a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
102. It is apposite to observe that the documents strongly support the plaintiff's case of declaration, injunction. The evidence favors issuance of a declaration thereby declaring the impugned notices alleged to have issued by The Forest Departmnet, GNCTD as null and void coupled with restraining the defendants, and injuncting them from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also led satisfactory evidence, and has discharged its burden/ onus.
Page 39 of 46103. Thus, based on the written submissions and evidence detailed in the document, the plaintiff's case appears legally and factually well- founded, entitling it to the reliefs of declaration, injunction, and right to use the subject property to the exclusion of others.
104. The suit of the plaintiff presents a persuasive case for this Courts intervention to restore the rule of law, protect property rights, and provide amenable remedies for the grievous wrongs alleged.
105. After a careful perusal of the facts, circumstances of the matter coupled with the pleadings, evidence, submissions and the corresponding law relied upon by the parties, this Court is inclined to give its issue wise findings as follows:
(1)Whether the plaintiff is the lawful allottee of the suit property and has been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession thereof since allotment dated 20.11.1974? OPP
106. Issue no.1 is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants no.1 to 5. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff, its associates, agents, employees, members, etc have been allotted the subject property. The plaintiff has been in possession of the subject property ie bearing description Farm house/Land Bearing Khasra Nos. 60, 101 (4-16), 102 (3-18), 103 (5-19), and 104 (1-14) of Revenue Estate of Village Chattarpur, Tehsil Saket, New Delhi, known as 'Manchanda Farm/ Manchanda Poultry Farm' admeasuring around 10,000 sq yards, since its allotment.
107. The plaintiff has proved lawful allotment in 1974 by Gram Page 40 of 46 Panchayat-Sabha, supported by allotment documents, Gram Pradhan certificates, Khasra Girdawari, mutation by MCD (1976), revenue records up to 2015-16, and the DDA lease deed dated 20.11.1974. The Court-appointed Local Commissioner has independently confirmed long-standing poultry sheds, residential use for around 20 years, boundary wall/fencing, water tanks and electric poles, evidencing settled, peaceful and continuous possession. These findings stand unrebutted as the defendants neither filed a written statement nor any evidence; under Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co.(supra), non-traverse amounts to admission of material facts, and unrebutted evidence must be accepted as true unless inherently improbable. Read with Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi (presumption of ownership from long, continuous possession) supra, and Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu (settled possession protected even vis-à-vis better title)supra, the plaintiff has clearly discharged the onus on Issue (a), which should be answered in her favour.
(2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of Bhumidari rights in respect of suit property? OPP
108. It is apposite to mention that the since the locality/ village has been urbanized, the plaintiff cannot be declared as a bhumidar. Notwithstanding the same, the plaintiff has established her possession and rights in regard to the subject property.
109. The plaintiff has shown compliance with Section 74(4) of the Page 41 of 46 Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and that her application for declaration of bhumidari rights has remained pending solely due to administrative inaction, despite The Hon'ble High Court directions. While the court ultimately notes that post-urbanisation formal bhumidari status cannot now be declared, it recognises that her substantive rights and possession stand established and cannot be defeated by the State's failure to act. In Sham Lal v. Atma Nand Jain Sabha, AIR 1987 SC 197 The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no party can benefit from its own wrong or inaction; once statutory conditions are fulfilled, accrued rights cannot be nullified by delay.
110. Accordingly, even if a formal declaration of "bhumidari" is technically barred by urbanisation, the court can and should record that the plaintiff fulfilled the statutory conditions and enjoys all incidents of lawful tenure/ownership arising from that status, answering Issue in principle in her favour to that limited extent.
(3)Whether the insertion of "Van Vibhag/Forest Department" in the revenue records relating to the suit property and the notices dated 30.10.2025 issued by defendant no.3 are illegal, unauthorised, without due process of law and liable to be declared null and void?OPP
111. Issue no.3 is decided and answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 to 5. The original notices/ true copies of the impugned dated 30.10.2025 were never produced by the defendants. The copies of the notices alleged to have been issued by the Forest Department, office of Dy. Conservator of Forest, South Page 42 of 46 Delhi are hereby declared as null and void.
112. The "Van Vibhag/Forest" entry appears only once in the 2017- 18 Khasra Girdawari as a pencil/manual notation, without any supporting order, notification, mutation, or proceedings under the Delhi Land Revenue Act or Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Patwari could not produce any document justifying the change, and the Local Commissioner recorded that no notification or order vesting the land in the Forest Department was shown. Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4770, recognises that unauthorised revenue alterations made without due process have no legal sanctity and cannot confer title or prejudice a person in lawful possession. Similarly, the forest notices dated 30.10.2025 are unsupported by any statutory notification or valid assumption of jurisdiction; the original notices were never produced by the defendants, and only the copies affixed by unknown persons are on record. In State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 404) The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that deprivation of property without authority of law violates Article 300A and that executive action cannot substitute statutory compliance. Therefore the pencil "Van Vibhag" entry and the notices dated 30.10.2025 are illegal, unauthorised, issued without jurisdiction and due process, and liable to be declared null and void.
(4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint?OPP Page 43 of 46
113. Issue no.4 is decided and answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 to 5. The defendants no.1 to 5, their agents and all persons acting through or for them are hereby permanently and perpetually injuncted, restrained from trespassing, encroaching, interfering, or otherwise harming, interfering with the property or easement rights of the plaintiff in any manner, and other purposes pertaining the subject property, and the subject matter of the present suit. The order dated 29.11.2025 is confirmed to the same effect.
114. On the evidence, the plaintiff has established (i) lawful allotment and over five decades of continuous, peaceful possession;
(ii) recognition of her possession by revenue authorities and by a court-appointed Commissioner; and (iii) the complete absence of any lawful forest notification or acquisition in respect of the suit property.
115. The defendants have not filed a written statement, not entered the witness box, and have withheld the "best" revenue/forest records; adverse inference arises under Section 114(g) Evidence Act, as explained in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and Vidhyadhar (supra) v. Manikrao. Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu (supra); squarely supports grant of injunction to protect settled possession even apart from title, while Bhagwan Dass (supra) and Mukesh Kumar (supra) support declaratory and injunctive relief against arbitrary State interference without due process.
116. Given the unchallenged Local Commissioner's report, the prior detailed interim order dated 29.11.2025 finding a strong prima facie Page 44 of 46 case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and the total absence of any lawful competing claim, the plaintiff is entitled to:
a declaration confirming her lawful allotment and long-standing rights in respect of the suit property; a declaration that the "Van Vibhag/Forest" entry and the notices dated 30.10.2025 are null and void; and a permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants and all persons acting through them from trespassing, encroaching upon, or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property, save in accordance with law.
Relief.
117. Issue no.5 is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 to 4. In view of the pleadings, unrebutted oral and documentary evidence, the Local Commissioner's report, and the above precedents, all issues stand proved in favour of the plaintiff. She is entitled to a decree in respect of the suit property Farm house/Land Bearing Khasra Nos. 60, 101 (4-16), 102 (3-18), 103 (5-19), and 104 (1-14) of Revenue Estate of Village Chattarpur, Tehsil Saket, New Delhi, known as 'Manchanda Farm/ Manchanda Poultry Farm' admeasuring around 10,000 sq yards Page 45 of 46
(i) declaring her lawful allotment and long-standing rights over the suit land;
(ii) declaring the "Van Vibhag/Forest" entry and notices dated 30.10.2025 illegal, unauthorised and void; and
(iii) permanently restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession or acting on the impugned notices, with the interim order dated 29.11.2025 made absolute, save in accordance with the law.
118. Suit is decreed and disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 24.12.2025.
Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal (Sunil Beniwal) beniwal Date: 2025.12.24 16:12:46 +0530 District Judge-06(South), Saket Courts, New Delhi Page 46 of 46