Delhi District Court
M/S Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan ... vs . Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 November, 2019
Suit No. 26828/16 Page 1 of 39
IN THE COURT OF DR. JAGMINDER SINGH
JSCC-cum-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
cum-GUARDIAN JUDGE, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. : 26828/16
In the matter of :
1) M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan
(Regd.),
WZ-198, Naraina Village, New Delhi-110028
Through Its President Sh. Maha Singh.
........Plaintif
Versus
1) Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development
10th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi.
2) Chief Engineer,
Department of Irrigation & Flood Control,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 4th Floor,
ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
3) The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Civil Centre, Near Ramlila Ground, Delhi.
4) SDM (Delhi Cantt),
Jam Nagar House, 12/1,
Shahjehan Road, (Near UPSC Office),
New Delhi-110011.
......Defendants
M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Suit No. 26828/16 Page 2 of 39
Date of institution of the suit : 03.12.2012
Final Arguments Heard on : 09.10.2019
Date of Judgment : 07.11.2019
Final Decision : DISMISSED
SUIT FOR DECLARATION & PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT :-
1. This is a suit for declaration & permanent injunction.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present suit as mentioned in the plaint are that Sh.Maha Singh is the elected President of the plaintiff society through whom, present suit is filed. Plaintiff is engaged in welfare of residents of village Naraina. Predecessors-in-interest of villagers constructed a Chaupal on the land measuring about 700 Sq. Yards which belongs to the villager as the land belonging to Rajput Chaupal is 'Abadi Deh' of village Naraina and the same was being used for marriage, ceremonies, social gathering, meetings and other incidental purposes. By the passage of time, structure of Rajput Chaupal became old and dilapidated and keeping in view M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 3 of 39 the ever increasing Abadi of the village day-by-day, it was decided by the plaintiff society to demolish old construction and to construct a new Rajput Chaupal covering the entire area of 700 Sq. Yards. For the said purpose, several correspondences were also made to the concerned departments. Officials of GNCT of Delhi after survey and physical verification of the site on 11.10.2002 agreed to reconstruct the Chaupal and sanctioned Rs.19.85 Lacs on 29.10.2002. Since the villagers wanted to cover the entire area of 700 Sq. Yards approx. and funds of Rs.19.85 Lacs were not sufficient, GNCT of Delhi again sanctioned a total funds of Rs.50 lacs for demolition and re-construction of Rajput Chaupal at plot No. WZ-822, Village Naraina, New Delhi, measuring about 700 Sq. Yards. Thereafter, Irrigation & Flood Control Department did not get the site plans sanctioned nor started the work. Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 20.10.2008 to Chief Engineer, Deptt. of I&FC but despite service of said notice, defendants no. 1 & 2 neither sanctioned the said proposed site plans nor got M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 4 of 39 sanctioned their site plans from MCD. On enquiry under Right to Information Act, defendant no.2 forwarded a copy of its site plans proposed to be implemented for the said re- construction, to the plaintiff which was most unhygienic, unplanned, injurious, without provision of car parking and cross ventilations. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a suit for permanent & mandatory injunction against the defendants no. 1 to 3 which is still pending. Defendant no.3/MCD has clearly stated in its WS that construction so being raised at the Rajput Chaupal is unauthorized and illegal and no site plans have been got sanctioned by the defendants no. 1 & 2 from MCD. Defendant no.3 had also booked the said unauthorized construction and passed the demolition order dated 18.10.2010 and thereafter the building is sealed vide order 15.07.2011. Defendants no. 1 & 2 aggrieved with demolition order dated 18.10.2010 filed an appeal to Appellate Tribunal, MCD which is also pending. In said appeal, defendant no.4/SDM (Delhi Cantt) vide its letter dated 31.10.2012 written to Secretary (UD), Ministry of M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 5 of 39 Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, has stated without understanding the provisions of Section 154 & 156 of Delhi Land Reforms Act in its true perspective that the lands in village Naraina after its being notified u/s 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, vested in Government and so the suit property Rajput Chaupal i.e. WZ-822, Village Naraina, vested in Government as per Section 154 of the DLR Act and the Gaon Panchayats have powers u/S 156 of the said Act to develop the said land. Along with said letter, SDM (Delhi Cantt) also enclosed a copy of the forged and fabricated letter dated 04.12.2002 of Sh. Jagir Singh, the then SDM (Delhi Cantt) and copy of Jamabandi showing the entire lands in village Naraina as "Abadi Deh". Since there was no Gaon Sabha in village Naraina since its inception, plaintiff society asked for the information from the office of SDM (Delhi Cantt) under Right to Information Act and the information so received from Sh. Rajeev Shukla vide its letter dated 29.04.2009, the then SDM (Delhi Cantt) along with report of Halqa Patwari, M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 6 of 39 confirmed that there is no any Gaon Sabha land in village Naraina. Abovesaid report of SDM (Delhi Cantt) is based upon the Gazette Notification dated 05 th May 1956 issued by Under Secretary (Development) to GNCT of Delhi by which Delhi State was divided into various Gaon Sabha in which there is no mention of any Gaon Sabha in village Naraina. On another query under RTI Act, about the issuance and basis of letter dated 04.12.2002 of Sh. Jagir Singh, SDM (Delhi Cantt), Sh.D.S. Gahlot, the then SDM (Delhi Cantt) vide its letter dated 28.11.2011 informed that the letter dated 04.12.2002 of Sh. Jagir Singh is not in their record and also that there is no record that the said Rajput Chaupal is situated on the Gaon Sabha land. It is submitted in one LAC case in the Court of Ld. ADJ that an information received under RTI Act from the office of Sh. D.S. Gahlot, SDM (Dehi Cantt)/PIO to the effect that Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 does not apply to the villages Naraina, Nangal Raya & Jadid Chhawani which are falling under the jurisdiction of Delhi Cantt, Sub Division was proved by Sh. Deepak Suri, M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 7 of 39 Recovery Assistant in the office of SDM, Delhi Cantt. Defendants no. 1, 2 & 4 have forged & fabricated the letter dated 04.12.2002 in the name of Sh.Jagir Singh, the then SDM (Delhi Cantt) and defendant no.4 misguided the Secretary (Urban Development), GNCT of Delhi, without looking into and verifying the said facts from its own record and wrongly quoted the provisions of Section 507 of DMC Act and Section 154 and 156 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. Defendants no. 1 & 2 in connivance with other defendants have also moved an application for regularization of the said unauthorized construction which is the subject matter of suit no. 37 of 2009 and in the said suit, MCD in connivance with the defendants no. 1 & 2 has not filed any ATR despite the statement dated 19.08.2011 on oath of Sh. Hisamuddin, AE, Building before the Court. In the said regularization application, defendants no. 1 & 2 on the report of Sh. Pradeep Kumar SDM (Delhi Cantt) have stated that the land in question belongs to Govt. and the Govt. is owner of Rajput Chaupal. Statement of defendants no. 1, 2 & 4 to the M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 8 of 39 effect that land of Rajput Chaupal vested in Govt. after the village Naraina notified u/s 507 of DMC Act and provisions of Section 154 & 156 of DLR Act are applicable and that there is a Gaon Sabha in village Naraina and that the land of Rajput Chaupal is a Gaon Sabha land is entirely against the documents on record of SDM (Delhi Cantt) which have been concealed by the SDM (Delhi Cantt) for his own vested reasons thereby causing wrongful gain to the defendants no. 1 & 2 and wrongful loss to the plaintiff society. The SDM (Delhi Cantt) vide its letter dated 31.10.2012 has also tried to convert the land of Rajput Chaupal into Govt. land and thereby also committed criminal offence for which the plaintiff is initiating appropriate proceedings in the Court. Said letter dated 04.12.2002 allegedly in the name of Sh. Jagir Singh, the then SDM (Delhi Cantt) is forged and fabricated and has been relied upon by Sh.Pradeep Kumar, SDM (Delhi Cantt) and may be vexatiously or injuriously used by the defendants against the plaintiff to grab their property i.e. WZ-822, village Naraina, New Delhi on the M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 9 of 39 ground that the said land vested in Gaon Sabha after the village Naraina notified u/s 507 of DMC Act and if the said document is not cancelled or left outstanding, same may cause serious injury to the plaintiff. Defendants no. 1 & 2 on the basis of said forged document dated 04.12.2002 are bent upon to initiate proceedings for regularizing the said unauthorized and illegal construction made by them on the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff has filed the present suit. This Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
3. On the suit of the plaintiff, summons were issued to the defendants. Defendants no. 1 to 4 were appeared. WS was filed on behalf of defendants no.2 to 4. WS was filed on behalf of defendant no.2 stating that the present suit of the plaintiff is barred u/s 347E of DMC Act, 1957; under the garb of the present suit, plaintiff is seeking declaration regarding its right over the title of the property in dispute and therefore, the suit merits dismissal; plaintiff society has no locus to institute the present case in as much as the M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 10 of 39 property in question belongs to the Government after the notification done under Section 507 of DMC Act, whereby the village Naraina has been urbanized; plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed all the relevant and material facts from Court; plaintiff society from its conduct clearly shows that the suit filed by them is only an attempt to create disruption in the work of the Government so as to settle their ego and to achieve goals; suit of the plaintiff is premature and without any cause of action and liable to be dismissed. In para-wise reply, defendant no.2 denied the averments of the plaint. WS filed on behalf of defendant no.3 stating that the present suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice u/s 477/478 of DMC Act, 1957; there is no cause of action against the answering defendant/MCD; present suit is not maintainable for want of relevant Court fees and also not maintainable as relevant document has not been supplied to the answering defendant, hence suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. In para-wise reply, defendant M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 11 of 39 no.3 denied the averments of the plaint. WS was filed on behalf of defendant no.4 stating that the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hands; Sh. Maha Singh, the alleged president of plaintiff society who had filed, signed and verified the pleadings is not authorized by resolution or any authority of the plaintiff society to institute the above suit and to act on behalf of plaintiff society, accordingly the suit is not legally competent and liable to fail; no notice u/s 80 CPC as required under the law was served upon the defendants and as such the suit is not maintainable; plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit as the Chaupal is meant for use of villagers at large for public utility and common purposes and it is admitted that same was being utilized for common purposes for organizing marriage, social functions etc. and under the garb of social cause, the plaintiff wants to grab the govt. land for its own purpose; no permission has been sought by the plaintiff to file the present suit as required under the law; plaintiff's suit for declaration is barred by law of limitation as plaintiff himself M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 12 of 39 seeking declaration on the basis of letter of SDM dated 04.12.2002; present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Department of Panchayat, Govt. of NCT of Delhi which can properly refute the claims mentioned in the present suit on a property meant for common utility of the residents of village Naraina, New Delhi. In para-wise reply, defendant no.4 denied the averments of the plaint. Replication filed on behalf of plaintiff to the WS filed on behalf of defendants no.2, 3 & 4.
4. Thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed :-
(i) Whether the present suit is barred in view of the provisions of Section 347 E of the DMC Act? OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to institute the present suit? OPD
(iii) Whether the present suit is barred by provisions of Section 477 & 478 of the DMC Act? OPD
(iv) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
(v) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(vi) Whether the residents of village Naraina or the M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 13 of 39 plaintiff have any ownership rights in respect of the suit property? OPP
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration declaring the letters dated 31.10.2012 and 04.12.2002 of SDM, Delhi Cantt, as null & void? OPP
(viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
(ix) Relief.
5. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff had examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8.
6. PW1 is plaintiff himself Sh. Maha Singh who tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and he relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/24 (OSR).
7. PW2 is Sh. Surender Yadav, Patwari, LAC, Jam Nagar House had proved the documents Ex.PW2/1 & Ex.PW2/2 i.e. computerized scanned copy of award number 1621 and copy of award No. 919 respectively.
8. PW3 is Sh. Satbir Singh, Patwari from the office of SDM, Delhi Cantt had proved the documents i.e. Ex.PW3/1 Jamabandi of Village Naraina for year 1948-1949 in Urdu M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 14 of 39 language. He further stated that the Ex.PW3/1 was issued under the Punjab Land Revenue Act and under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, Khatauni is issued. The land falling in Khasra No.1791/12 in village Naraina fall in Lal Dora Abadi Deh and at present also, there is no Gaon Sabha in village Naraina.
9. PW4 is Sh. Rajbir (Numbered as PW5), UDC from office of Sub-Registrar-IX, Kapashera had brought the summoned record i.e. Ex.PW5/1 sale deed dated 06.04.2010 registered as document no.3741 in Addl. Book No.1, Volume No.5249 on pages 92 to 98 and Ex.PW5/2 i.e. sale deed dated 11.05.2010 registered as document no.5329 in Addl. Book No.1, Volume No.5307 on pages 51 to 57. He further stated that the concerned properties are of village Naraina.
10. PW5 is Sh. Saurabh (Numbered as PW6), Junior Assistant, Depy. Commissioner, R & I Branch, South-West Kapashera appeared for verification the RTI applications filed by applicant. He had also brought the movement record of the RTI Applications Ex.PW6/1.
M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 15 of 39
11. PW6 is Sh. D.S. Gahlot (Numbered as PW7), SDM (HQ), District South M.B. Road, Saket. He proved the RTI Reply dated 28.11.2011 Ex.PW7/1, RTI reply dated 28.11.2011 Ex.PW7/2 and RTI Reply dated 25.11.2010 Ex.PW7/3. He had further stated that he was working as SDM, Delhi Cant w.e.f. August, 2010 to 12.07.2012.
12. PW7 Sh. Sanjay Sharma (Numbered as PW8) is Bailiff from office of SDM, Delhi Cantt proved document Ex.PW8/1 i.e. letter by Tehsildar, Delhi Cantt.
13. No other PW was examined on behalf of plaintiff. Thereafter, PE was closed vide separate statement of plaintiff and the matter was fixed for DE. No any witness was examined on behalf of defendants despite giving sufficient opportunities and DE on behalf of defendants stood closed vide order dated 21.02.2019 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
14. Final arguments heard. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff is duly authorized to file the present suit by the concerned society of the villagers. Provision of M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 16 of 39 Delhi Land Reforms Act are never applicable to the village Naraina. There was no any Gaon Sabha of the village Naraina and therefore, no question arises of conversion of the Gaon Sabha land into the Govt. land. The suit property is the property for common use of all the villagers and Govt. is having no right, title or interest upon the same. The letter dated 04.12.2012 & dated 31.10.2012 issued by the concerned SDM of Delhi Cant are forged & fabricated. The plaintiff have proved his claim through the oral & documentary evidence produced by him. All the witnesses produced by the plaintiff confirmed that no Gaon Sabha ever existed in village Naraina and the land of the village Naraina including the suit property are personal property of the villagers and not vested in the Govt. The defendants have not produced any evidence to rebut the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, present suit is liable to be decreed. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had also filed written synopsis regarding his arguments.
15. Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 & 4, Ld. Counsel M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 17 of 39 for defendant no.2 & Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 opposed the suit of the plaintiff. It is submitted by Ld. Counsels for defendants that suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 347-E of the DMC Act. Plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration under the garb of present suit for injunction. Plaintiff society is having no locus-standi to file the present suit. The suit property is the Government land and plaintiff is having no right, title or interest qua the same. Village Naraina, where the suit property exists has already been declared as urbanized. The plaintiff cannot claim any ownership right upon the suit property. Admittedly, the suit property which is in the form of a Chaupal is meant for common purpose for all the villagers and plaintiff cannot claim any ownership right qua the suit property. Plaintiff wants to grab the Government land. Suit of the plaintiff is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
16. I have considered the submissions of both parties and have gone through the relevant record. I have also gone M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 18 of 39 through the written synopsis and documents placed on record as well as evidence produced by both parties. First of all, issue no. (iii) is taken. Issue no.(iii) is that Whether the present suit is barred by provisions of Section 477 & 478 of the DMC Act? Onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. As per Section 477 of the DMC Act, no suit can be filed against a corporation or municipal authority for anything which has been done by authority in good faith. As per Section 478 (1) of the DMC Act, there is a requirement of giving prior notice of two months before filing of any suit against the MCD. However, as per Section 478 (3) of DMC Act, the condition of giving prior notice shall not apply to the suit in which only relief claimed is an injunction. In the present suit, the relief claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant no.3/MCD is only the relief of injunction. No any other relief is claimed by the plaintiff against defendant no.3/MCD. Defendants have not placed on record any document/evidence to discharge their onus to prove that suit of the plaintiff comes under the purview of Section 477 M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 19 of 39 & 478 of DMC Act. Hence, issue no. (iii) is decided against defendants and in favour of plaintif.
17. Issue no. (i) is that Whether the present suit is barred in view of the provisions of Section 347 E of the DMC Act? Onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. Section 347-E of the DMC Act reads as, "(1)After the commencement of section 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1984, no court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order or notice appealable under section 343 or section 347B and no such order or notice shall be called in question otherwise than by preferring an appeal under those sections.
(2) ........................"
18. As per WS filed on behalf of defendant no.3/MCD, the suit property had already been booked u/s 343 and 344 of DMC Act vide file no. B/UC/KBZ/2010/313 dated 04.10.2010 and after following due process of law, demolition order was passed on 18.10.2010. In the second M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 20 of 39 portion of prayer clause (i), the plaintiff is seeking relief against the regularization of the unauthorized construction without any sanction of the site plans on the suit property. It is admitted fact that the demolition order qua the suit property has already been passed due to unauthorized construction. The jurisdiction to decide the question of regularization of the unauthorized construction or the legality of the demolition order lies with the Ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD as per Section 347-E r.w. Section 347-B of the DMC Act. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of the relief of injunction claimed against defendant no.3 regarding regularization of the unauthorized construction is not maintainable before this Court. So issue no. (i) is decided in favour of defendants & against the plaintif.
19. Issue no. (iv) is that Whether the suit is barred by limitation? Onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defendants to prove this issue. As per para no.15 of the plaint, the M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 21 of 39 cause of action for filing of the present suit arose when the demolition order was passed by the MCD on 18.10.2010 and further when the sealing order dated 15.07.2011 was passed by the MCD. The plaintiff is also seeking relief against the letter dated 31.10.2012 of the then SDM (Delhi Cant). During evidence, the plaintiff had placed on record letter dated 31.10.2012 as Ex.PW1/9. According to which the entire area of village Naraina has been urbanized and its land has been vested in Central Government. Plaintiff has also placed on record documents Ex.PW1/6 & Ex.PW1/7 (Colly) i.e. the status report filed by the SDMC dated 03.08.2011 in which there is mention of demolition order dated 18.10.2010 and regarding sealing order dated 15.07.2011. The suit has been filed on 03.12.2012. Therefore, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff within the period of limitation. Hence, issue no. (iv) is decided in favour of plaintif and against the defendants.
20. Issue no. (v) is that Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? Onus to prove this issue is M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 22 of 39 upon the defendants. Defendant no. 4 in his WS raised preliminary objection that department of Panchayat, GNCT of Delhi is a necessary party in the present suit. Therefore, the onus was upon defendant no.4 to bring the relevant record or any witness from the department of Panchayat during evidence to prove this issue. But defendant no.4 had neither moved any application for impleading the department of Panchayat, GNCT of Delhi as a party nor brought him as a witness. On the other hand, the plaintiff in his plaint had not sought any relief against the department of Panchayat, GNCT of Delhi. There is no averment in the plaint against department of Panchayat. Accordingly, the defendant had failed to show that how the department of Panchayat, GNCT of Delhi is a necessary party in the present suit. Therefore, issue no. (v) is decided in favour of plaintif and against the defendants.
21. In view of the facts of the suit and inter linked nature of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, issue no. (ii), (vi) and (viii) are hereby taken together for adjudication. Issue M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 23 of 39 no.(ii) is that Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to institute the present suit? Issue no. (vi) is that Whether the residents of village Naraina or the plaintiff have any ownership rights in respect of the suit property? Issue no.
(viii) is that Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? Onus to prove issue no. (ii) lies upon the defendants and onus to prove issues no. (vi) & (viii) lies upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff in his affidavit tendered during evidence Ex.PW1/A as well as in the plaint claimed his right over the suit property i.e. the Rajput Chaupal stating that the same is 'Abadi Deh' of village Naraina. In evidence, plaintiff had placed on record copy of Jamabandi of village Naraina Ex.PW1/11 for the year 1948-49 showing the nature of the land of village Naraina as 'Abadi Deh'. The plaintiff/PW1 had placed on record document Ex.PW1/14 i.e. copy of gazette notification dated 05.05.1956 issued by the Govt. of Delhi which contains the schedule of the villages which were declared as Gaon Sabha area under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. In this M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 24 of 39 notification, there is no name of village Naraina. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the land of village Naraina was not Gaon Sabha land, but it was 'Abadi Deh' belonging to the villagers. The plaintiff had also placed on record document Ex.PW1/15 which is a copy of letter dated 25.11.2010 written by the then Ld. SDM, Delhi Cant Sh. D.S. Gahlot in which he had replied to an RTI application stating that the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 does not apply to village Naraina.
22. As per defendants, the suit land was earlier vested in Gaon Sabha and thereafter, in furtherance of the issuance of notification u/s 507 of the DMC Act, the suit land vested with the Central Govt. The Delhi Land Reforms Act came into operation in year 1954. As per Section 1 (2) (a), this Act applies to whole of the Union Territory of Delhi except the area included in municipality or a notified area under the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 or a Cantonment under the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924. As per Section 1 (2) (b) & (c), this Act shall also not M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 25 of 39 apply to the areas owned by Central Govt. or any local authority and the areas held and occupied for public purpose or a work of public utility and declared as such by the Chief Commissioner or acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or any other enactment other than this Act relating to acquisition of land for a public purpose. As per the list of urbanized villages placed on record by the plaintiff during evidence as Ex.PW1/23, the village Naraina was urbanized vide notification No. F.9(2)/66/Law/Corpn. dt. 28.05.1966, under Section 507 of The DMC Act, 1957. In view of Section 507 (a) of the DMC Act, before the issuance of notification, the area of village Naraina was rural area. Therefore, before year 1966 and when the Delhi Land Reforms Act came into force in year 1954, the Delhi Land Reforms Act was applicable to village Naraina as plaintiff had not shown any documents to prove that area of village Naraina was under the exception of this Act as mentioned in Section 1 (2) (a), (b) & (c) of this Act.
23. In view of the facts of present case, the Section 7 M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 26 of 39 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is hereby reproduced as under:-
"7. Rights of proprietors in wast lands, pasture lands or lands of common utility, etc., to vest in Gaon Sabha and compensation to be paid for them. -(1) All rights of an individual proprietor or proprietors pertaining to waste lands, grazing or collection of forest produce from forest or fish from fisheries lands of common utility such as customary common pasture lands, cremation or brutal grounds, abadi sites, pathways, public wells, tanks and water channels, or Khalihans, whether covered by an existing contract between such proprietor or proprietors and any other person or not, shall with effect from the commencement of this Act be terminated in accordance with the provision of sub-section (2) and the said contracts, if any, shall become void with effect from such commencement:
[Provided .........................."
24. As per Section 3 (13) (b) of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, the word land also include the village Abadi. Section 154 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act reads as under:-
"154. Vesting of certain lands etc., in Gaon Sabha.- 2[(1)] On the commencement of this Act.-
M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 27 of 39
(i) all lands whether cultivable or otherwise, except land for the time being comprised in any holding or grove,
(ii) all trees (other than trees in a holding or on the boundary thereof or in a grove or abadi) 3[or planted by a person other than a proprietor on land other than land comprised in his holding],
(iii) public wells,
(iv) fisheries,
(v) hats, bazars and meals, except hats, bazars and meals held on land to which provisions of clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of section 11 apply,
(vi) tanks, ponds, water channels, pathways and abadi sites,
(vii) forest, if any, situate in a Gaon Sabha Area, shall vest in the Gaon Sabha:
...................................."
25. The question of ownership rights of any private property of a person is answered in Section 8 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act which prescribes that all private wells in or outside holdings, all tanks, groves and Abadis, all trees in Abadi and all buildings situate within the limits of an estate belonging to or held by a proprietor tenant or other person, whether residing in the village or not, shall continue to M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 28 of 39 belong to or be held by such proprietor, tenant or person, as the case may be, on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Chief Commissioner. It is not the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff's society has been given any special right through an order of the Chief Commissioner under Section 8 of the Act.
26. It is rightly pointed out by the plaintiff that in the Govt. Gazette Notification dated 05.05.1956 Ex.PW1/14, there is no name of village Naraina in the names of villages of Gaon Sabha area. However, plaintiff's society has failed to take into account another official gazette notification dated 28.05.1966 Ex.PW1/23 by virtue of which the revenue estate of village Naraina was urbanized as per notification u/s 507 of the DMC Act.
27. As per Section 150 (3) of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, where the whole of the Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural area as defined in DMC Act, 1957 by virtue of the notification u/s 507 of the DMC Act, the Gaon Sabha constituted for that area shall stand dissolve and upon such M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 29 of 39 dissolution all properties and all interests of whatsoever nature which earlier vested in the Gaon Sabha immediately before such dissolution, shall thereupon now vest in the Central Govt. It can safely be presumed that the legislature is well aware of the law of the land before making a new law upon the subject. So it cannot be said that the legislature did not take into consideration the gazette notification of year 1956 Ex.PW1/14 before the publication of the notification of year 1966 i.e. Ex.PW1/23. Even if the notification of year 1966 wrongly included the name of village Naraina for urbanization, then, the villagers or predecessors of the plaintiff should have raised that issue for amendment/rectification of the notification before the appropriate forum, but nothing is brought on record by the plaintiff to show that any such conflict was ever raised or any request of letter was sent to the Govt. by the villagers or predecessors of the plaintiff regarding notification of year 1966.
28. The plaintiff to show his entitlement upon the suit M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 30 of 39 land, has only relied upon the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1948-1949 Ex.PW1/11. Admittedly, this Jamabandi was issued before the commencement of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. As per PW3, this Jamabandi was issued under The Punjab Land Revenue Act i.e. the Act applicable before commencement of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. PW3 had further stated that under The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, Khatoni is being issued. The plaintiff has failed to produce any Jamabandi, Khatoni or other revenue record for any year after The Delhi Land Reforms Act came into existence to show that the suit land remained as Abadi Deh. It further show that the suit land is not Abadi Deh as has been claimed by the plaintiff society but the ownership of the suit land vested in the Central Govt. after the notification of year 1966 Ex.PW1/23.
29. The plaintiff had further based his claim upon the letters regarding replies to RTI Applications, written by Sh.Rajiv Shukla, SDM (HQ), Delhi Cant. Dated 24.04.2009 Ex.PW1/12 & the letter written by Sh. D.S. Gahlot dated M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 31 of 39 25.11.2010 Ex.PW1/15. As per Ex.PW1/12, it has been informed by concerned SDM that there is no any Gaon Sabha land falls in village Naraina. As per letter Ex.PW1/15, the concerned SDM had written that The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 does not apply to the village Naraina. In the aforesaid replies Ex.PW1/12 & Ex.PW1/15, the concerned Ld. SDMs have provided the status of village/suit land on the said date. As discussed above, after passing of the urbanization notification dated 28.05.1966 Ex.PW1/23, The Delhi Land Reforms Act ceased to apply to the Village Naraina and the suit land i.e. the Village Chaupal should have vested in the Central Govt. in terms of Section 150 (3) of The Delhi Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the said informations was provided by the concerned SDMs vide replies Ex.PW1/12 & Ex.PW1/15 that The Delhi Land Reforms Act is not applicable to village Naraina and there is no Gaon Sabha land in village Naraina because village Naraina had already stood urbanized on 28.05.1966 and the entire Gaon Sabha land already had vested in the Central Govt. M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 32 of 39
30. PW1/plaintiff had admitted in his cross- examination that the Naraina village has been urbanized. He had further stated that they are claiming themselves to be the owner of the society on the basis of document Mark-A. But the documents Mark-A are not proved on record during evidence by the plaintiff. PW1 had further admitted in his cross-examination that he had not filed any list of names of the villagers who are the members of their society and he had not placed on record M.O.A. and Article of Association of the Society. It is further admitted by PW1 that in village Naraina there are other societies also formed by the villagers of the village. Further to show locus of plaintiff's society to file the present suit, plaintiff had placed on record minutes of meeting of the society dated 16.11.2012 Ex.PW1/2. In his cross-examination, PW1 had admitted that there is no mention of the House Numbers of the members who had signed the minutes Ex.PW1/2 and it is also not mentioned therein that all those who have signed the minutes are the residents of the village.
M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 33 of 39
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that the suit property i.e. Chaupal in question had already vested in Central Govt. Neither the plaintiff's society nor the residents of village Naraina have any ownership rights in the suit land nor, plaintiff's society is having locus- standi to file the present suit. Admittedly, the Govt. acceded to the demand of the villagers to reconstruct the said Chaupal for public benefit. The villagers are merely having the right of permissible use in the suit land. Plaintiff's society has failed to show its ownership or the ownership of the villagers upon the suit land. Hence, issues no. (ii) &
(vi) are decided against the plaintif and in favour of defendants.
32. Issue no. (viii) is regarding permanent injunction. As per prayer clause, plaintiff is seeking two reliefs of permanent injunction i.e. one from converting the suit property into Gaon Sabha land on the basis of a forged & fabricated letter dated 04.12.2002 and another letter dated 31.10.2012 written by the then Ld. SDMs concerned. M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 34 of 39 Plaintiff is also seeking permanent injunction against regularization of unauthorized construction raised by the defendant without sanction of site plan of suit property. The plaintiff is seeking second part of injunction regarding regularization of unauthorized construction against defendant no.3/SDMC. As discussed above during adjudication upon issue no.(i), the said issue has already been decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants, wherein, it has been decided that the claim of injunction against defendant no.3 is not maintainable as same comes under jurisdiction of Ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD. This Court is having no jurisdiction in this respect in view of the Provisions of Section 347-E of the DMC Act, 1957.
33. First part of relief of injunction sought by plaintiff in prayer clause (i) is that the defendants may be restrained from converting the suit property into Gaon Sabha land on the basis of letter dated 04.12.2002 of Sh. Jagir Singh, the then SDM, Delhi Cant i.e. Ex.PW1/10 and other letter dated M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 35 of 39 31.10.2012 of Sh.Pradeep Kumar, the then SDM, Delhi Cant i.e. Ex.PW1/9. In Letter dated 04.12.2002, it was informed by the then SDM, Sh.Jagir Singh to the Executive Engineer-I that the Chaupal in question in village Naraina is situated upon Gaon Sabha land of Naraina village. Copy of this letter Ex.PW1/10 is having Dairy No.3214 dated 05.12.2002. The plaintiff has not placed on record any evidence to show prima-facie that defendants are converting the suit land into Gaon Sabha land on the basis of letter Ex.PW1/10. As per statutory provisions as discussed above, the land of village Naraina including suit land had already been vested in the Central Govt. in year 1966. Therefore, there is no question of converting the suit land into Gaon Sabha land on the basis of this letter. The other letter Ex.PW1/9 is of dated 31.10.2012. Contents of this letter reveals that this letter has not been written for the purpose of converting the suit land into Gaon Sabha land. In last paragraph of 1st page of letter Ex.PW1/9, it has been clarified in the letter itself that by virtue of notification dated 28.05.1966, the village M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 36 of 39 Naraina has been urbanized and same has been vested in Central Govt. Therefore, there is nothing in letter Ex.PW1/9 to show that the defendants are converting the suit land into Gaon Sabha land on the basis of this letter. Hence, in view of aforesaid discussion, issue no. (viii) is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintif.
34. Issue no. (vii) is that Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration declaring the letters dated 31.10.2012 and 04.12.2002 of SDM, Delhi Cantt, as null & void? Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that the aforesaid letters alegedly issued by the then concerned SDMs are forged & fabricated by the defendants. To prove his contention, the plaintiff had relied upon the reply of an RTI Application written by Sh. D.S. Gahlot, the then SDM to Sh. Hari Chand i.e. Ex.PW1/15 as document Ex.PW1/15 declared that The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is not applicable upon the village Naraina and therefore, there is no Gaon Sabha land in the village M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 37 of 39 Naraina. According to the plaintiff, it is wrongly mentioned in letters Ex.PW1/9 & Ex.PW1/10 that the Chaupal in question is situated on the Gaon Sabha land, therefore, same are forged & fabricated and are liable to be declared as null & void. The plaintiff had placed on record that as per document Ex.PW1/13 which is the reply of an RTI Application written by Sh. D.S. Gahlot, SDM, to the plaintiff, there is no record of Letter No.1069 dated 04.12.2002 i.e. Ex.PW1/10 available in that office. I have gone through the reply and the letter. Only on the basis of the reply that there is no record of the letter, it cannot be held as proved that letter Ex.PW1/10 is a forged & fabricated. Ex.PW1/10, is having dairy no.3214 dated 05.12.2002 of the office of CD-1. Plaintiff had not called the said record from the office of the EE, CD1 to clarify Dairy No.3214. Further plaintiff had not called the writer of the said letter namely Sh. Jagir Singh, the concerned SDM to clarify that whether this letter has been written or signed by him or not. The plaintiff had also not placed on record any evidence that the letter Ex.PW1/10 M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 38 of 39 was not written by Sh. Jagir Singh, the then SDM or has been forged by some other person. The evidence produced by the plaintiff are not sufficient to show that letter Ex.PW1/10 is a forged and fabricated document.
35. Other document which plaintiff is seeking to declare null & void is Ex.PW1/9 i.e. the letter dated 31.10.2012 written by Sh. Pradeep Kumar, the then SDM Delhi Cant. to the secretary, Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. In this letter the contents of the letter Ex.PW1/10 are clarified in second paragraph, whereby, it has been stated that the letter Ex.PW1/10 might have been written in view of provisions of Section 154 & 156 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It is further clarified in Ex.PW1/9 that in furtherance of notification dated 28.05.1966, the village Naraina has been urbanized and same has been vested in Central Govt. This letter is in agreement with the relevant statutory provisions of the DMC Act, 1957 and the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Plaintiff had not placed on record any evidence to show that how the M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Suit No. 26828/16 Page 39 of 39 letter Ex.PW1/9 is a forged & fabricated document. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion and due to lack of evidence, issue no. (vii) is decided against the plaintif and in favour of defendants.
36. Relief: Present suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
37. No order as to costs.
38. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
39. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on this 07th day of October, 2019 Digitally signed by JAGMINDER JAGMINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2019.11.07 16:27:31 +0530 (DR. JAGMINDER SINGH) JSCC-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge, Dwarka Courts : Delhi
Note: This judgment is having Thirty Nine pages and each page is bearing my signatures.
(DR. JAGMINDER SINGH) JSCC-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge, Dwarka Courts : Delhi M/s Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi